Karmelo Anthony's bid for a new trial is being heard in a Texas court, with defense lawyers arguing that a dispute over an unwritten agreement prevented Anthony from testifying in his own defense during his original trial for the murder of Austin Metcalf. The hearing is also addressing concerns about judicial bias, which led to the removal of the judge who presided over Anthony's initial conviction.
Retired District Judge Michael Chitty is now overseeing Anthony's request for a new trial. Earlier this week, Judge Sid Harle removed Judge John Roach, who presided over Anthony’s murder trial, from further proceedings. Harle determined that public perception of impartiality was compromised after Roach publicly stated the jury "got it right" and defended his trial decisions.
Anthony, 19, was convicted in June for the fatal stabbing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf during an altercation at a Frisco track meet. A Collin County jury sentenced him to 35 years in prison. Anthony is appealing this conviction, asserting he acted in self-defense.
Dispute Over Testimony Agreement
Central to the new-trial hearing is an alleged oral agreement between Anthony's original defense team and prosecutors. This agreement was reportedly intended to prevent potentially damaging character evidence concerning both parties from being presented to the jury. The former lead defense attorney, Mike Howard, testified that his understanding of the agreement was that Anthony could testify, provided his testimony focused solely on the track meet confrontation. However, he stated that on the final day of the trial, prosecutors asserted the agreement would not apply if Anthony took the stand, claiming the defense had already introduced character evidence.
Howard testified that this disagreement led to a contentious break in the proceedings and ultimately made Anthony unwilling to testify. Under cross-examination, Howard acknowledged that the lawyers never explicitly agreed on whether a testifying defendant was covered by the arrangement and could not definitively state whether prosecutors acted in bad faith.
Lead prosecutor Bill Wirske maintained that the agreement was mutual and that both sides agreed on the need to exclude character evidence. Wirske stated that the state did not believe the agreement extended to Anthony's testimony. He noted that the agreement prevented jurors from hearing allegations concerning Anthony's history with knives and violence. Anthony's current legal team contends that the agreement also excluded school records, social media posts, and videos that they claim could have supported his self-defense argument by demonstrating prior aggressive behavior by Metcalf and his twin brother.
Other Allegations in Motion
Anthony's motion also alleges that restrictions on courtroom access violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Furthermore, the motion claims that jury instructions limited the jury's ability to consider his self-defense claim. Howard testified that numerous off-the-record meetings occurred between the lawyers and Judge Roach before the trial, and that an "old-school" system was used for filing materials directly with Roach instead of formal pretrial motions. He also stated that the defense had discussed waiving some public-trial access due to security concerns, but no Sixth Amendment waiver was formally recorded.
Former defense attorney Toby Shook is also expected to testify. Judge Chitty must rule on the motion by Monday, according to Texas rules. If no ruling is made by then, the motion will be denied by operation of law, and Anthony's direct appeal will proceed.