Karmelo Anthony’s new legal team has asked a Texas court to overturn his murder conviction and remove the judge who oversaw his trial, less than a month after the 19-year-old received a 35-year prison sentence for the fatal stabbing of Austin Metcalf.
Anthony was convicted in June of murdering the 17-year-old during a confrontation at a high school track meet in Frisco in April 2025. Jurors rejected the defense’s argument that Anthony acted in self-defense and imposed a sentence of more than three decades in state prison.
The defense filed two separate motions Tuesday. One requests a new trial, while the other seeks the removal of Collin County District Judge John Roach from the remaining post-trial proceedings. Filing the motions does not change the verdict or sentence, both of which remain in effect unless a court rules otherwise.
Anthony’s lawyers are not primarily arguing that newly discovered evidence proves his innocence. Instead, they contend that several decisions made before and during the trial prevented him from receiving a constitutionally fair proceeding.
TRENDING TODAY
One of the defense’s central claims concerns an alleged off-the-record agreement between prosecutors and Anthony’s original attorneys. According to the motion, both sides agreed not to introduce character evidence or allegations of unrelated misconduct involving either teenager.
The defense says it relied on that understanding when questioning witnesses and preparing Anthony’s case. However, prosecutors allegedly argued on the final day of testimony that references made during the defense’s opening statement allowed them to introduce additional evidence if Anthony testified.
Anthony ultimately chose not to take the witness stand after being advised that doing so could expose him to questioning about information that had previously been excluded. His new attorneys argue that the sudden change effectively forced him to choose between exercising his right to testify and risking the introduction of potentially damaging material. Prosecutors had not publicly responded to that allegation when the motions were reported.
The motion also challenges restrictions on public and media access. Cameras and livestreaming were prohibited during the trial, and the defense says only 27 courtroom seats were available to members of the public. Attorneys argue that the limitations effectively violated Anthony’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
A ban on cameras does not by itself make a trial unconstitutional, but the court may be asked to determine whether the combined restrictions prevented meaningful public access. Evidence shown to jurors, including surveillance recordings, emergency calls and police body-camera footage, was released after the trial ended.
Anthony’s attorneys are also disputing the jury instructions related to self-defense. They claim the wording improperly restricted how jurors could evaluate the defense’s central argument and say that the alleged error could have affected the verdict.
The separate recusal request focuses on comments Roach made after the trial. According to reports describing the filing, the judge publicly agreed that the jury had reached the correct result and defended his decisions concerning courtroom access and jury selection.
Anthony’s lawyers argue that those comments create an appearance that Roach has already decided how he would rule on the request for a new trial. Roach is expected to refer the recusal request to a regional administrative judge, who could decide whether a separate hearing is necessary.
The original case drew intense online attention, including debate about race and self-defense. Anthony is Black and Metcalf was white. No Black jurors were seated, although prosecutors said their decisions to remove several prospective jurors were based on their backgrounds rather than race. The trial judge rejected a defense challenge to those removals.
The latest motions will not require the court simply to reconsider which version of the confrontation it believes. The more immediate legal question is whether the alleged procedural errors, individually or together, were serious enough to undermine the fairness of the trial.
Why It Matters
The case involves more than the outcome of one highly publicized prosecution. A defendant’s right to testify, the public’s ability to observe court proceedings and clear instructions on self-defense are important safeguards in the criminal justice system. The court’s decision will also matter to Metcalf’s family, which has already endured a lengthy and nationally debated case, and to Anthony, whose conviction could keep him imprisoned for decades.
What Comes Next
The prosecution may file a formal response disputing the defense’s allegations. A regional judge is expected to consider the recusal request, while the motion for a new trial could lead to written arguments or an evidentiary hearing. No new trial has been granted, and Anthony’s broader appeal can continue if the post-trial motions are denied.
Karmelo Anthony’s legal team is seeking a new trial and the removal of the judge who handled the case.
🚨 Exclusive: Karmelo Anthony’s legal team seeks new judge, new trial after murder conviction. https://t.co/92NhS7xQ06 pic.twitter.com/H2PVbjgwyA
— TMZ (@TMZ) July 7, 2026
