Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:03]
James Stainton
The Crime Desk Arresting Podcasts
- [00:08]
Instacart Advertiser
we all prefer things a certain way, like groceries. If you want groceries just how you like them, you gotta try Instacart. They have a new preference picker that lets you pick how ripe or unripe you want your bananas. Shoppers can see your preferences upfront, helping guide their choices. Because when it comes to groceries, they the details matter. Instacart get groceries just how you like.
- [00:32]
Progressive Advertiser
Insurance isn't one size fits all. That's why drivers have enjoyed Progressive's Name youe Price Tool for years now. With the Name youe Price Tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they'll show you options that fit your budget. So whether you're picking out your first policy or just looking for something that works better for you and your family, they make it easy to see your options. Visit progressive.com, find a rate that works for you with the name your price tool. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates Price and Coverage Match Limited by state law
- [01:03]
James Stainton
ACAST powers the World's Best Podcasts Here's a show that we recommend.
- [01:13]
James Richardson
Hello there. I'm James Richardson and I host the Tony Football Show. Now this summer, the biggest sporting event in the world, the football Men's World cup, is heading to Canada, Mexico, and especially the United States. We're going to be there too. We are packing up and heading to Los Angeles for the duration. Which means that every day straight after the last match has concluded, you can catch some hot takes, instant reaction, and insightful analysis from ourselves sat around the pool in la. Sounds like we're going to have a lot of fun doing it. I hope you're going to be joining us too. It's from June 10th all the way up to July 19th, the day of the final. Just search for the Tony Football show wherever you get your podcast.
- [02:03]
James Stainton
ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com
- [02:14]
Kayla Brantley
today we're following up on last week's Carmelo Anthony news out of Collin County, Texas. The murder of Austin Metcalfe has taken on a cultural life of its own. Outside the courtroom, cries of racism have surrounded Carmelo Anthony's conviction for murdering Metcalf, an athlete from a rival school, during a rain delay at a Track meet on April 2, 2025. Both boys were 17. Anthony overstayed his welcome at the Memorial High School tent and rejected Metcalf's repeated requests to leave. Other teens testified that Anthony was verbally aggressive. Metcalf shoved Anthony and Anthony pulled a folding knife from his backpack and Plunged it into Metcalf's chest. Metcalf died in the arms of his identical twin brother Hunter. An entire movement has grown around the idea that Anthony was treated unfairly because of his race. Lawyers for Anthony, who is black, argued self defense at trial but he did not testify. And a number of witnesses said that Anthony was never in danger. Today we're speaking to a prosecutor in a neighboring Texas county who did not participate in but was following the case closely. We'll get his perspective on the facts of the tragedy and how the law applies to the circumstances as we know them. Thank you for joining us. I'm Kayla Brantley and this is the Trial usa. We'll be back in a moment. We have with us again today James Stainton, the Wise county district attorney who we spoke to weeks ago after the death penalty verdict in one of his own cases. That was the murder of seven year old Athena Strand, another major case out of Texas recently. James is here to speak to us about the Carmelo Anthony case. The fatal act was severe. Austin Metcalf had a deep wound that punctured his heart. As we reported from the trial, it took less than three hours for the jury to find Anthony guilty. His lawyers put on a self defense case but Anthony did not testify and teen witnesses at the trial rejected the idea that the stabbing was justified. James, thank you for joining us again.
- [04:20]
Interviewer
This is an honor.
- [04:21]
James Stainton
Thank you for having me.
- [04:22]
Interviewer
Yeah, thank you so much for being here. This is another case out of Texas. Thank you. Also from the larger Dallas Fort Worth area where there's a significant amount of publicity and public interest in this case. Oh yeah. And the Carmelo Anthony case, mainly seen from activities outside the courtroom has become very racially charged and very controversial. The families of both young men involved have reportedly received serious threats. And obviously a promising young man is dead here. He was an athlete. He was cherished by his family including his identical twin brother who unfortunately watched him die. James, to your understanding what was the strongest evidence in this case?
- [05:05]
James Stainton
Well, I think the first thing here is it was, it was two promising young men that, that engaged in what would normally just be a. A bit of a bravado among 17 year old boys at a track meet. Probably not an unusual occurrence that's probably happened across the state. And one of them took it. I think that the basic way I can say one of them took it a little too far. And so I think the strongest thing here is the law in this case in Texas is very clear. We have two sections in our law that allow you to Use force. And then you have another section that if you're going to use lethal force, you have a separate section. So the law in this case is really what makes this case, when you look at it from the legal perspective, not as hard to understand. I think there's a lot of other noise on the outside. There's a lot of racial being charged. I don't get into that. I'm focused on what the law is and what the facts are. And for me, the race of whoever's involved, it's irrelevant. It's the facts. It's what's going on. Now, other people on the outside make it relevant. But the strongest evidence in this case is simply the facts applied to the law. And in Texas, we have what's called a reasonable person standard. So basically, you have to be reasonable in your use of force that's in the law, if you look it up, and that you're limited in when you can react with lethal force. And that is what really moves this case along.
- [06:40]
Interviewer
Yeah. And in this case, Carmelo Anthony's lawyers, they argued that he feared for his safety. And there was aspect of size to this. Austin Metcalfe was taller and heavier. But the jury was sold on that defense. From what you know about the case, did self defense seem supported by evidence?
- [06:58]
James Stainton
Well, the first thing you look at is, and I think if you break it down, it makes it real easy to understand. In Texas, if somebody is using unlawful force against you, okay, you have the ability to be justified. Now, you don't automatically get it. Right. It's something you have to. You have to put some evidence on, okay, to be justified. And then, so you, if you had the ability to use some force that was probably in this case, acceptable, right. If there was some pushing and shoving, that was the facts of this case, right. Then you had the ability to use some force. The real question here is, did you have the ability to use lethal force? And that's where this case goes. So I think that too much got, I don't know, a lot of other noise, a lot of other stuff went out. There's a ton of bad information. And that's one of the reasons why I want to talk with you today. When y' all asked me about this, I want to give the best information that I can.
- [08:00]
Interviewer
And what is. What is some of that bad information?
- [08:03]
James Stainton
Well, I mean, it's been put out there about how that, you know that there's some people in cahoots, right, that the judge, you know, there's that AI picture that went around I don't know if you saw that online that it purported to be the judge and the defense attorney and the Metcalf family, all kind of like buddies. I haven't seen any actual evidence of that. The picture wasn't even of the judge. The judge has a beard. He's very distinctive. He's been on the bench a long time. So that's bad information. The other thing is, is that there's been bad information presented about when someone has the ability to use force against the other. There's been this whole thing out there that you know, somebody laid hands on somebody so therefore I can just use deadly force and it's somehow. Okay, that's, that's, that's in no self defense law that I've ever seen across the United States. So there's just, there's just bad information that has gone out about this. And you know, there is a size difference. Now that is one thing about this that plays in as far as the facts. You ask about the size difference. Those Metcalf boys, they're good sized kid. They both play linebacker at a 5A high school in Texas. And having a kid that plays football or played football in high school, that's they're good sized kids. But you know Carmelo, if you remember correctly, he's also a captain on his football team according to the Internet. And he's not a small, small child either. They show him online. I looked up their pages. You can do that online. They have their stats and things. Carmelo, also a captain on his football team, but he, he's listed it at 510, 180 I think, if I remember correctly. So there is a size difference and that plays in with the facts, but it doesn't, it doesn't make the difference that a lot of people are putting out there. This wasn't somebody who was unable to defend themselves. This wasn't a, you know, a 300 pound man and an eight year old child. Okay. That's not what happened.
- [10:07]
Interviewer
Do you know the judge or the prosecutor in this case personally?
- [10:12]
James Stainton
So I have met Mr. Willis, the DA. We have been at functions together. Mr. Willis has been a DA for a long time and Mr. Willis is recognized across the state and across the nation as well as in our own prosecutors group as being a fantastic prosecutor. He is well recognized. He's developed multiple programs and things that are unique to Collin County. I don't know, he's not, I don't have his cell phone number in my phone. So we are not acquainted like that. He's In a much larger county. He has a staff of over a hundred people. So Collin county is massive. Okay. It's basically Dallas. Okay. It's huge. But he's well recognized across state. Now I'll say this, you're asking about the lawyers. The defense attorneys on this as well are also very well recognized in North Texas for their trial prowess and everything else. So you got the best of the best. When you see that case and you see the prosecutor, Mr. Wirski, if you've seen him on there, he has been both a top flight defense attorney, but he's also a top flight prosecutor. I don't know the other gentleman. Mr. Howard, I believe. Is that his name? Mr. Howard? I don't know him as well, but his co counsel, I believe his name was Toby Shook. Do you remember, do you know that name? Have you seen that in there?
- [11:28]
Interviewer
I'm not sure about Mr. Shook.
- [11:29]
James Stainton
Shook, I believe he's the one who did some cross examination of the defense. Toby Shook is also recognized as a top flag defense attorney.
- [11:37]
Interviewer
Okay.
- [11:38]
James Stainton
Across north Texas. Go ahead.
- [11:40]
Interviewer
And I know you mentioned that, you know, you just want to speak on the facts, not so much about the race issue, but it's almost impossible to ignore when it's such a high profile case. You have celebrities speaking out about it. You have local outcry, national outcry as well. And one of, one of the things that has been argued is that there were no black jurors on this case, that the black jurors that could have been selected were dismissed during jury selection due to conflicts. There were other minorities on the panel. But how do you feel that something like that can affect this case? And was that something that either the prosecution or the defense argued? As far as jury makeup, I think
- [12:22]
James Stainton
that in Texas and in all states, when you pick a jury, I've never, and I've been doing this 25 years, I've never seen a lawyer, state or defense pick juries based on the color of the juror's skin. I've never seen that and maybe I'm immune to that. I've been out here in the country. But I think most prosecutors and most defense attorneys talk to those people first. And that's what we're not hearing. And I think that's what we're missing. We're only looking at the color of skin of the people that were excluded. We don't know what they said when they're questioned. I will guarantee you that both the defense and the state questioned those jurors. And without knowing what they said, so, for example, if you had a juror on there that seemed to be very sympathetic and unwilling to convict somebody based on their age, even if they committed a crime. Right. And they said, you know, I'm just never going to convict somebody that's a kid. Well, that's probably. Could be a disqualification. But from the state's point of view, you probably don't want that juror, regardless of skin color. So what we don't know, and this is, again, some of that noise that's out there, that if those jurors that were African American jurors that were excluded from the jury or were struck from the jury, if they did indicate in discussions that they did have a bias or they did have a predisposition to voting one way or the other, I think the reason that was given by the state was that they were educators. I believe that was a reason given by the state if they had indicated as part of being an educator that they were more sympathetic to a kid in high school or something along those lines. I'm giving examples because I don't really know. I wasn't sitting there in the courtroom. But I will guarantee you, if you pull the record, those attorneys talk to those jurors. And that's what I think. I think everybody's kind of presuming that one side just got rid of the African American jurors. But I think I would like to see what they said. And if they are sympathetic and they do say some things that indicate they're biased to one side or the other, then extracting them from the jury is just fine. Right. And I think that if you know how jury selection works in these cases, these attorneys get extensive amount of time to talk to these jurors, and the jurors respond and they talk to other jurors. How do you feel juror A about what juror B said? This goes on. And these are top flight lawyers. These are not people that are one year out of law school on either side. So I'd like to see that before I made any type of judgment as to the reason behind it. And if their reason is that they were sympathetic or biased or whatever, fine. That's perfectly okay.
- [15:12]
Interviewer
Okay. And when we spoke a few weeks ago in the Athena Strand case, there was very clear and horrific dashboard video and audio that nailed the case shut. In terms of proof.
- [15:26]
Instacart Advertiser
Right.
- [15:26]
Interviewer
This case is quite different. There is security footage, but it's from far away that journalists were able to view. That includes our colleague, Marianne Martinez. She was one of them, and she wrote that it didn't really appear that there was a major scuffle leading up to the stabbing. But again, it was a very distant view and it left a lot of room for speculation and for argument.
- [15:49]
James Stainton
Right.
- [15:49]
Interviewer
How important is it to have that physical evidence? Because other than that, you just have eyewitnesses and you have, you know, Carmel Anthony's word against everyone else.
- [16:01]
James Stainton
You did well. And I think this is where the law comes in, and I think this is where Texas law is very good in this respect. The law says that before you can use force against somebody, you have to reasonably believe, right. That that force is necessary. Now, notice when I say reasonably, that's not you as an individual. That is a reasonable person standard. So that's what the jury is judging you by. You're not judged if you're hypersensitive, right? If you're hyper, hypersensitive to somebody pushing you and you overreact to things. That's not the standard. The standard is the reasonable person standard. And you. It has to be immediately necessary. That's the second part of the law. So you can't, you know, go do it two weeks from now, right. Or, you know what I mean, you can't do that. So I think in this case, I feel like, you know, you're going to get eyewitness testimony. And I listened, and I didn't listen to the testimony, but I read all the stuff from the reporters, not the ones that kind of seemed like they had a bent, right? Like they were shaded. I wanted to see the actual facts. And the eyewitnesses were generally, I think if we look at the whole picture, they had a general consensus that there was some type of pushing and shoving going on. I think everybody kind of agrees with that. There was some form of pushing and shoving between both boys. And it may have been more on Mr. Metcalf's side. It could have involved Mr. Anthony. But I think everybody agrees that there was some form of physical altercation and it could have been at the hands of Mr. Metcalfe pushing Mr. Anthony. It could have been mutual. There's a lot of gray area.
- [17:41]
Interviewer
Well, to that, you know, Anthony didn't testify in his own defense. And typically, you know, you as a lawyer, any legal expert will say, you know, it's very risky to have someone on the stand testify in their own defense. However, especially at that age. Of course, however, he's the only person who could directly speak to how fearful he may have been to really speak to the self defense motive was the decision to keep him off the stand potentially harmful to this case.
- [18:12]
James Stainton
Well, I mean we can Monday morning quarterback a lot of stuff, but I think that the way the law is written in Texas, even if, I mean, let's go with the best case scenario for Mr. Hanson, let's say he was fearful, let's say he, that was his testimony that he was fearful, that he believed something bad was going to happen to him. Okay, well let's put that out there. That, that came out. That still doesn't necessarily match what Texas law says. Texas law says it's a reasonable person has to believe that using that force. And remember, we're only talking about pushing and shoving, right? The next step being lethal force is a totally different deal. So I think that even if Mr. Anthony was fearful, some form of force, I mean I think most people, common sense can say if I'm being pushed, if I push somebody back, I think most people are going to say, oh that's probably justified, right? I think common sense, we would say if I get pushed, I can push somebody back. You know, people have said, well what could Mr. Anthony have done? Well, I think that if you step it up one step and you say, well what if he had punched him, right? Let's say there was some pushing and there was some punching going on. I think most people, most with common sense, even the people from east and west coast would say maybe, right? Like I feel like we as humans would say if somebody's pushing me and I give them a punch, most people aren't going to get too mad about that, right? I feel like common sense. The real question is that when can you go to this level, when can you go to lethal force? And that's the real issue here. So even if you presume the worst, let's presume the worst, presume that Mr. Metcalf is all the worst, right? He's being aggressive, he's cussing. There was no testimony of this, that there was, there was some yelling back and forth. And I mean you can imagine that, right? A couple of 17 year old boys and kids, I think we can all agree there was some yelling back and forth. The key is when can you go from the pushing and shoving or maybe a punch or maybe some non lethal force. The real question is when can you go here And I think to go to your question about why he wouldn't testify, I think that's a real problem in Texas and that's the key to this case. There's nothing, I can't see anything that would justify going to lethal force because In Texas, what it says, it's very clear it's immediately necessary to protect yourself from the use or attempted use of deadly force. So Texas law, I like to kind of say practically it's reactionary, right? That it's, it's a reaction to what somebody else does. And I think that generally speaking, nobody would believe that you can react just automatically with lethal force when you're only presented with non lethal force. And there's kind of a gray area in the middle. But I think that, I don't think we want the standard to be that if it's a pushing match, somebody gets to pull out a pistol or a knife and use lethal force as part of a pushing match. I feel like internally, no matter where you are in the United States, no matter what your political affiliation or anything else, nobody wants the standard, that if I push somebody, I get to pull out a pistol. Because remember, deadly force is deadly force. It could be a knife, a pistol, a bat. Nobody wants that scenario. I think that's the real problem here. That's probably why they didn't put him on the stand, because even if he was fearful, there's not enough evidence out there, I don't think, to get to that point.
- [21:56]
Interviewer
And it seemed like the jury, that was exactly their thinking here.
- [22:01]
Kayla Brantley
We're taking a quick break after this.
- [22:07]
Instacart Advertiser
Foreign. Instacart makes grocery shopping easier. And just because you're not doing the shopping yourself doesn't mean you don't care how it's done. With Instacart Shopper notes, you can get particular about what you want right in the app. Like rotisserie chicken that's extra crispy steak with marbling the Romans would have loved, and lettuce you'd actually pick yourself. Just leave a note for your shopper so that they can get it right for you without having to ask. That way you can get groceries just how you like. Download the Instacart app and shop today.
- [22:42]
Progressive Advertiser
You're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote. With discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings by $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.
- [23:22]
Interviewer
One thing about this case, the judge, John Broca Jr. He didn't allow cameras in the courtroom and he said that this was to ensure that there was a fair trial. I will say that the absence of cameras, it can help fuel speculation. And as you said earlier, there were a bunch of unsupported theories that spread. And do you think not having those cameras in the courtroom really helped fuel that? Or would it kind of put these things to bed if people were able to watch what's going on? Whereas on the other hand, when you do have cameras in there, then you have clips all over social media and really making this a much bigger case. When you look online and you have all this footage, what are your thoughts on that?
- [24:07]
James Stainton
I can tell you from somebody who spent a month on camera, that'd be me. I am torn on this. This is a big debate in the United States right now among prosecutors and defense attorneys. You know, on the one hand, we have the United States where we are so media driven, right? We're so driven by media and social media and AI now and all of these things that I think people in the United States, they want to see that. I think the citizenry, if you go out there, regardless of age, race, demographics, culture, anything, I think most people want to see what's going on in the courtroom. That's why these podcasts like yours are so widely popular. Because we as the United States, I think we've seen a shift where people are more aware of their rights, they're more aware of what's going on in court, they're more educated. I think it's fantastic in that respect. They were educating the citizenry more about what really goes on in the courtroom. The flip side of that is, and this is the other thing is it can also fuel if there are high racial tensions, it can fuel that. Because now you have clips and you watch the entire Horner case, there are certain things that people could pull out and say, well, this was said, or that was said and could be manipulated. So it is a real tussle. Judge Roach has been very clear that he just doesn't do cameras in his courtroom, period. And I think he is probably in the majority of Texas judges right now. Now, Judge Gallagher, who you saw in Mr. Horner's case with Athena and that whole. And that is that he was been on the bench a long time. Judge Gallagher is a 30 year jurist, I believe, very experienced, has tried capital death penalty cases I mean, he is probably the most experienced person you could have on the bench. And he was torn by it because he. On the one hand, he wanted it to be out in the public because we have a public forum. But we also had a tiny little courtroom. I mean, it was tiny little courtroom. So it was like, okay, if we don't do the cameras that we're going to try to be packing in, I mean, there's just so many of these concerns. So there is no right answer. You could put cameras in there and Carmelo Anthony case, and maybe it. Maybe you could say it would turn out better. It would kind of dispel some of these things. You could hear some of the people testify. I think that's where it would have been helpful is hearing these student witnesses. We need to blur out their face. We don't need them publicized or anything else. But hearing their testimony saying, you know, things like, well, you know, it was testified by a couple of witnesses that Mr. Anthony was asked to leave. Right. I mean, that came out. I think that was pretty clear, universal. But I think that that doesn't tell the entire story. It was like, how was he asked to leave? Right. I mean, doesn't tell the entire story. So there's no right answer. I think if it had been publicized, would it have been better? I think you could say yes and no until you do it. I just don't think it is. And this case was so charged on both sides with the whole racial issue that I don't know. I don't know if it would have solved anything. There was. There was just so many mad people on both sides. They were just mad. It made me sad because there were so many people that were so angry and so violent on both sides, and that's just not how. That's not how we need to try cases. If we're going to go to a jury, then we're going to go to a jury and the jury's going to make a decision. And either we have faith in the system or we don't. That's just it. Either you have some faith in the system, because people sure trust the system when it finds somebody not guilty. Right. If people on one side that they want somebody to be found not guilty and they're found not guilty, well, all of a sudden the system is now wonderful.
- [28:09]
Interviewer
Yeah. Well, obviously this is such an emotionally charged case. So you can. You can just imagine. And like you said, it was very. The emotions were heightened here. And you have two teenage boys who, you know, unfortunately, you know, both of Their lives are ruined. And Carmelo Anthony, he'll be eligible for parole about halfway into his sentence. And at that point, according to Texas law, yes, he'll be in his 30s. Can you explain a bit what the parole process is like in Texas and will the parole board consider at that time, is he likely to get out early, do you think?
- [28:45]
James Stainton
My personal opinion is as. I don't see him getting out early. Texas is very serious about a conviction for murder. We in Texas, nobody gets a pass. And do I think that he'll probably make parole? Assuming. Now, let's assume some things. Let's assume that he conducts himself in a reasonable manner while he's in prison. Let's assume he doesn't have any violations. Let's assume that all of the things that are good for him, you know, he takes advantage of school programs and jobs and all of the things that are available in the Texas prison system, he keeps his nose clean, so to speak. I don't see any reason why the parole board, given his age and what had happened, I believe is. Now, this is something we didn't see in trial. I never saw his school records. I never saw his. If he had ever had. Now, I would think if he'd had any other criminal records or anything, we would have seen that. So I'm going to presume that Mr. Anthony did not have any other record. And if that's the case, he's a first time offender. He, he should make parole. Most likely does.
- [29:49]
Interviewer
Does the parole board need to hear him take responsibility when that time comes?
- [29:55]
James Stainton
Now, the parole board normally is a three person board that does look at that. And, and they will, they will ask about that. Now, I think responsibility in this case is kind of a, it's, it's not what it would be like somebody who got caught with a bag of dope in their pocket. Okay. In this case, I think that taking responsibility, you know, to some extent, Mr. Anthony already did that. Right. He did tell the police in the beginning. I did it. He did tell the police what it, what had happened and what he believed had happened and how that his feelings were on the situation. So I think he's already admitted to committing the act. I think there's a difference between admitting to committing the act and taking responsibility, as we may think about that in, in common vernacular. So I think that he'll probably, and I think maintain that he felt like he was defending himself. I think that that came out very clear from the very beginning. I think that if, and I'm going to give you a Hypothetical, at least, because I haven't talked to Mr. Anthony. But I believe, and I think most people believe this, that if you sit down with him, he would say, I felt like I needed to defend myself. I feel like he would. Would say that. That seems to be the testimony. I think that that's where the jury comes in. Right? The jury says, were you reasonable in that belief? Were you reasonable in doing that? We'll probably give you maybe punching, maybe pushing, something like that, but are we willing to give you lethal force in response to what happened? The jury said no. So I think he's already taken and admitted to committing the act. I think responsibility in this case is something altogether different. I mean, he would have to admit and say, I didn't really fear for my life. I didn't really do that. I don't think that's going to happen, and I don't think that'll necessarily matter. I think simply the jury disagreed and said you weren't reasonable in your assessment.
- [31:52]
Interviewer
Do you have any final thoughts on this case overall?
- [31:55]
James Stainton
You know, one of the things that's come out that I think I can offer an opinion on is this. How do we get to where we are in the legal system, what. What took place and whether or not, you know, there's been some tests, there's been a lot of angry people go online and talk about how that Mr. Anthony was railroaded, that people are in cahoots and other things. And I will tell you from a former defense attorney, I did it, and I had a lot more hair and a lot less wrinkles. But I. I was a defense attorney as a young lawyer. I will tell you that there is not a single thing that happens that Mr. Anthony, I don't know if they were communicating. I'm assuming they were communicating to his family and other people, given his age and lack of legal experience. So I'm going to make that assumption. I hope I'm not wrong on that. But there were no moves made in that case that Mr. Anthony did not know about. There's been a lot of speculation going on that somehow these lawyers that, you know, they were doing things. I will tell you there is no possibility, given the experience level of the defense team, that they made a single move that was not directly explained and talked about and gone over with Mr. Anthony and probably his family and anybody else that's out there, that does not happen. You know, there's some testimony that, well, why didn't you do this? Why didn't you present this? Why didn't you present this? I will guarantee you, given the experience level of the defense, every single move that was made in that case was talked about and calculated. And so I think that at the end of that, you know, there was this whole speculation about why didn't they call more witnesses more Mr. Anthony, why didn't they call more witnesses at punishment, why didn't they do all that? There's two schools of thought. You could call a bunch of witnesses, you know, and maybe it makes a difference. Right? You could call a school teacher, right. Who maybe says that Mr. Anthony was a good student. Right. You could maybe put in his grades or lack of disciplinary. I mean, he was a captain on his football team, which indicates that he was likely did not have the extensive disciplinary problems. Because you know how schools are these days. They don't. They're not going to let you do that if you're a discipline problem. Right. So I think that that's one thing that from the legal perspective and maybe not the practical perspective is there's this theory that there's this, you know, the defense attorneys are somehow acting on their own. That is not happening from the legal perspective.
- [34:22]
Interviewer
So in your experience in the legal world in Texas, is 35 years a typical sentence for murder? And is the sense that the jury was a bit sympathetic in reaching a sentencing decision?
- [34:37]
James Stainton
So this is another legal part of this is that in many cases where there are extenuating circumstances, and this is a case that involved two kids. Now, obviously, do I, if you ask me, do I believe Carmelo Anthony is guilty of murder? Absolutely. I don't have any doubt about it. Do I believe that he was not justified in using deadly force? The law says he was not justified. I believe that. I don't have any problem with the jury's verdict of guilty and I don't necessarily have the problem with the jury's sentence. This is the nature of a jury. I have had a case of kids killing kids. I tried that case a year ago before we tried Athena's case. And my case involved two boys that tricked their buddy, took him out in the woods and shot him in the face and in the back of the head. We tried that before. There was pre planning. There was a lot of trickery and deception going on. There was a really bad acts going on. The sentence in that case from the judge, I think it was a little over 40 kids were all 17 and what have you. Now, what I don't want to do is compare Mr. Anthony's case and compare my case. My case had a lot of bad actors and Things. So it could have gone, remember it's 5 to 99. Okay. It could have gone much higher, it could have gone much lower. They went to the judge and not the jury. Remember that's an option in this case. They could have gone to the judge for punishment. But the other option is there's some kind of deal that could have been worked out beforehand. And I guarantee you, given the experience level of both the prosecutor and the defense team, there had to be some form of negotiations back and forth. But when you go to a jury and you roll the dice and you put out your defense and you lose, you know you're going to get what you get in this case. And this is the problem with self defense. If you pull the self defense lever, right, and you go down there with that and you put it out there and you lose. Right. The jury says you are not reasonable, you give them the ability to put whatever number is on is out there. So that is the nature of that. You know, it could have gone either way. I could have seen this case easily. The jury do in the teens to 20 based on the age of the defendant. I could have easily see that. Now on the flip side of that, I could have easily seen this case be a 50. I could have easily seen. And we talked about it here in the office kind of where do we think it's going to go? I could easily seen a jury do 50 easy.
- [37:18]
Interviewer
Okay, so they weren't, you know, it's not to say that 35 was them being lenient or anything.
- [37:25]
James Stainton
No, I think that they're looking at the facts. And I think that if you go and try to say that hey, it was reasonable to stab somebody for a pushing match and you're wrong. I think that the jury in most cases across Texas is going to tax year. That's how it works. And it's one of those things. There are other options out there and I will guarantee you again, all of those options were explained to the entirety of the defense side. There is no possibility that either one of those lawyers did not have meetings upon meetings. These are top quality lawyers. These are not. There's been some stuff out there that Mr. Howard was some kind of public defender or what have you. Most defense attorneys, just so you know, do appointment cases. We don't have a true public defender system like they do. I think you guys are in New York, aren't you? Right. If I remember correctly, you guys have a public defender system that does that. We have an appointed attorney system. So it's a really good system. Because in serious cases, for example, like murder, you will, the judge will go out into the community and find these top tier lawyers and appoint them to the case. And that didn't happen here. I believe they were hired on it. But I can tell you those lawyers know what they're doing. So this case could have gone either way. It could have gone 15, it could have gone 50. Do I think that in that county that, that sentence is out of line? No. I will tell you, I know a little bit about Collin County. They, you know, as a, if you look at their verdicts across the board, their jurors don't like crime. Their juries don't tend to be lenient for anyone, regardless of offense. So does that surprise me? Absolutely not. It's a lot like what we are out here now, we're much smaller, but our juries here, they're more than willing to look at, for example, low level drug offenders and be compassionate and things like that, but they're not compassionate. Things like, you know, murder victimization of people, especially children. And Collin county is, you know, their citizenry. They don't tolerate crime and it doesn't matter. You know, people have put the race card out there. It's universal. They don't like crime.
- [39:45]
Interviewer
Anthony was tried as an adult. He's 17 years old. Yes. The decision there to try as an adult. How, how did, how do you come to that? And do you think things would have been different if he was tried as a juvenile?
- [39:59]
James Stainton
He's 17. He's an adult in Texas, period.
- [40:03]
Interviewer
And if he, so if you're 17, you can't be tried as. What is the age 17 is?
- [40:09]
James Stainton
It's 16. 17. You're an adult in Texas.
- [40:12]
Interviewer
Okay, so there was no way he could even be tried as.
- [40:16]
James Stainton
No. That's why that didn't, that's why that didn't come out on that, because he was 17 at the time. So when you're, when you're 17, that's, that's when we start seeing you in Texas. And I'm going to give you a little bit of information here on that because I can, I think it's important on that is because we have some specific rules in Texas. In Texas, once, once you're 17 or older, you're not a juvenile. You go directly. So the kid that, that I prosecuted for the murder that shot his friend, he was 17. His buddy that was with him that we certified him, he was 16. We certified him as an adult and he ended up pleading guilty as an adult and going to big Prison. But in Texas, Carmelo was an adult in all purposes, not a juvenile.
- [41:08]
Interviewer
Yeah, I think that's something that's a misconception because there was some criticism that he was tried as an adult when he should have been tried as a child. But, but, you know, if Texas law is different than that. Yeah, that's just a misconception that not many know, because I'm not sure exactly in New York or New Jersey, But I think the assumption is generally that, you know, 18, you're an adult, and people think that that's universal.
- [41:32]
James Stainton
Yes. So we've got rules in Texas. In Texas, for example, if you're, I believe if you're under 10, and don't quote me on this because I'm, I, I, I have to look it up every time because I want to be right. But we have rules if you're under 10, you generally can't be prosecute crime if you're under the age of 10. But then in Texas, yeah, when you're 17, you're it. The age you can actually be prosecuted is age of 10. I look it up every time just to be sure, because we have kids that are 10 and 11 that are committing some pretty serious offenses. So I always look it up to make sure I'm right. I don't, I don't like to guess, but in Texas, when you're between 10 and 16, you're, you're a juvenile. But when you're 17, for all purposes, it's a little scary. I mean, I have children. My middle son is no longer a teenager. And so you look at that. I look at when he was 17 and how immature they are when they're 17. You know what I mean? And this is what's unfortunate in this case. I just, you know, I don't know what our society has come to where kids feel like in a pushing match and an argument or a screaming match that they feel the necessity to result in, to engage in lethal force. I don't know what's being put out there to these kids. I don't know what they're being told. I don't understand it. You know, I grew up, and I've told y' all before, I grew up as a redneck, you know, out here in the country. And when two boys had a little problem, we went out in the high school parking lot and we handled our business and we both ended up being sore. And somebody won and somebody lost, but nobody went in and got a bat. Nobody went and got a knife and stabbed any, you know what I mean, nobody really did that. And I don't know what it is with kids today that they feel like if they're disrespected or something's wrong, I don't know what it is that they feel like that they need to go get a gun or a knife or something and return force with lethal force. I don't know. It makes me sad in our country that two young men that engaged in what I would probably say happens probably at every track meet with, you know, competing testosterone and interests and football players. And I'm sure there was a push and match and there was maybe some bad language. You know, there was some aggression on both sides, and one side decided to resort with a lethal force. And what I didn't understand about this case was the statement that's gone out that says, you know, somebody put their hands on me. And so I defended myself. And I'm thinking full stop here. You know, we don't want that to be the standard in the United States. I mean, think about this. Look at all the pushing and shoving that went on outside. You all watch those videos, right between the two sides. In Mr. Anthony's case, if the standard is pushing and shoving, we get to go to lethal. What happens in that scenario? And you're justified in going to lethal. Look at that scenario. Look at all the protests, right? We've seen protests all over the place. There's constantly pushing and shoving and people have. And if the standard across the United States is if you put your hands on me, I get to pull a pistol or stab you, that is insanity. That's inconceivable. And I don't care what demographic you're from or state or rich or poor, none of that matters. Nobody wants the standard to be. If there's pushing and shoving and mean people that we get to start stabbing. And I mean, that is chaos. And I don't know what's being put out there. And I hope that this case, and I, to be honest with you, I, I never want anybody to be deceased, okay? I, I, if two boys want to go out there, I come from the old school. If Mr. Anthony and Mr. Metcalf want to go out and beat the crap out of each other because they got some kind of beef, all right, fair's fair. You know, let's, let's, let's handle our business. That's probably not the right way to do things. There's probably better ways to handle things than physical violence. I understand that. I'm not advocating that. But, but if two boys Want a scrap? All right.
- [45:54]
Interviewer
Okay. They should be able to go home. They should be able to go home. At the end of the day, they
- [45:59]
James Stainton
should be able to go home. And maybe they get beat up and maybe they get charged as criminals, maybe they get a ticket or maybe they get expelled from school. But this, this theory that's being put out there, that if you lay hands on someone, you get to deal with it however you see fit. That is madness. And I hope that this case kind of puts out there to the kids. It says, listen, have your kids stuff. And I'm not immune to that. Kids do stupid things. They say, mean things to each other, okay? But if we're going to be a society, we cannot. And that's been. The things that have kind of gone out in the public that it's somehow okay. How Mr. Anthony reacted to. That's not okay. It's not okay to react that way, to react with lethal force. And it was lethal force. It's a small knife. It's lethal. Okay? There's no doubt about that. I don't. I just can't condone anybody advocating for lethal force from a pushing match and meanness. And I don't know if Mr. Metcalf was being mean. I wasn't sitting there. I'm just presuming what, what teenage boys do, you know, they. They mouth at each other. They both play football. Come on, let's be real here. They're mouthing at each other. That's what boys do. They should have both gone home. And I think our society that is accepting of using lethal force like this, that's madness. And we should never do that. That's my point.
- [47:39]
Interviewer
No, no. Thank you. Thank you so much. That was. I mean, it is a crazy case and it's just really, just bad all around. It's very sad.
- [47:47]
Kayla Brantley
So that's it for today. We'll be back with a new episode next Wednesday. The Trial USA is part of the Crime Desk. Subscribers can listen ad free, get early access to new shows, full access to the archive and the member only podcast the trial. Plus visit thecrimedesk.com to find out more. A link is in the show Notes. Follow us on TikTok at the Crime Desk and on Instagram hetrialpod. Leave a comment on Apple podcasts or Spotify or send us a voice note on WhatsApp. 447-7966-57512. Start your message with the word.
- [48:34]
Progressive Advertiser
Insurance isn't one size fits all. That's why drivers have enjoyed Progressive's Name your price tool for years now, with the Name youe Price Tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they'll show you options that fit your budget. So whether you're picking out your first policy or just looking for something that works better for you and your family, they make it easy to see your options. Visit progressive.com, find a rate that works for you with the name your price tool, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliate price and coverage match, limited by state law. Are you looking for the best deal on a new home? Discover the Dr. Horton home of the Week. With new construction homes now selling in ellensburg from the mid-3002, Dr. Horton has the right home at the best value for you, offering one and two story homes near Central Washington University. Your new home is within reach. So what are you waiting for? Learn more about the Dr. Horton Home of the Week, visit trhorton.com and schedule a tour today. Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal Housing
- [49:31]
James Richardson
Opportunity Builder A diagnosed psychopath recently sat across from me and revealed the exact thing they do to exploit you. I can't cover that in the next 15 seconds. I'm Andrew Gold. I left the mainstream behind to expose the hidden psychopaths running our world. I challenge the herd mentality with guests like Richard Dawkins, Douglas Murray and even Robbie Williams and sit down with political heavyweights, alt historians and ex Scientologists to find out if someone is using that psychopath tactic against you right now, search the Andrew Gold show on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. That's the Andrew Gold Show. Subscribe today.