Karmelo Anthony’s Attorneys Move To Appeal, Question A Fair Trial

Karmelo Anthony’s fight to overturn his murder conviction is not over.

According to CBS News Texas, Anthony’s appellate attorneys say they plan to continue challenging his conviction. This comes after a judge denied his request for a new trial, with the legal team raising questions about excluded evidence, Anthony’s decision not to testify and the jury selection process.

Previously reported by BOSSIP, Anthony was convicted of murdering 17-year-old Austin Metcalf after fatally stabbing him during an altercation at a Frisco ISD track meet in April 2025. Collin County jury rejected Anthony’s self-defense claim and determined that he intentionally stabbed Metcalf.

CBS News Texas states following the unsuccessful attempt to secure a new trial, Anthony’s attorneys are now turning their attention to the appellate process.

“Under the law, we had the burden of proof,” lead attorney Russell Wilson said. “It wasn’t necessarily surprising … given there was a limited amount of time.”

Anthony’s Attorneys Say Jurors Did Not Hear Evidence Relevant To Self-Defense

In CBS News Texas, Wilson introduced information during the new-trial hearing that was not presented to the jury that convicted Anthony. It includes allegations of troubled and violent episodes in Metcalf’s background. Prosecutors responded with information about Anthony’s past behavior.

Wilson argued that the additional evidence could have mattered when jurors considered who initiated the confrontation.

“I believe that the evidence we put on show the pattern of conduct that should’ve been considered in determining whether or not who was the aggressor in the situation,” Wilson said.

Attorney Sean Daredia emphasized that Anthony’s previous behavior had not resulted in arrests and said the defense’s argument was not about determining which teenager had the more troubling history.

“There were no arrests,” Daredia said. “He wasn’t arrested previously… Again, we’re not going back-and-forth through who’s worse, who’s not. This comes down to whether Karmelo received a fair trial.”

At the center of that fairness argument is a private agreement between prosecutors and Anthony’s trial attorneys.

CBS News Texas reports that the two sides agreed to exclude background information about both teenagers, allowing jurors to focus on what happened during the brief confrontation that resulted in Metcalf’s death. Anthony’s appellate team now argues that the arrangement kept jurors from hearing information they believe was important to evaluating his self-defense claim.

“That jury did not hear all those things that they needed to hear, so there’s no way you can say that this was a fair trial,” attorney Gary Bledsoe said.

Jury Selection And Race Could Become Issues On Appeal

Anthony’s attorneys also plan to raise concerns about jury selection as the case moves through the appeals process.

According to CBS News Texas, prosecutors’ exclusion of three Black women from the jury is among the issues Anthony’s attorneys say they intend to challenge. The appellate process could take more than a year.

“We think a diverse jury should be there, and we think that in light of the information they knew that there was an issue regarding whether or not they had confidence that African-American jurors would not be receptive to that,” Wilson said.

When asked whether race played a role in the case, Wilson stopped short of saying explicitly that the confrontation itself was racially motivated.

“There wasn’t necessarily anything racial said at the time, but when you decide to approach, or pick on a person if you will, what motivates you to choose that person?” Wilson said.

Daredia offered a more definitive assessment.

“It absolutely had everything to do with race,” he said.

Daredia also questioned whether Anthony, who had recently finished high school and had no previous experience navigating the criminal justice system, could have fully understood the implications of the private agreement between the attorneys.

“What we’re saying is if four experienced attorneys couldn’t put it in writing because it’s too nuanced, too complicated, how is a young man who just finished high school, with no legal background, never been a part of the criminal justice system, how is he supposed to know what is right? He relied on that,” Daredia said.

Defense Says Agreement Factored Into Anthony’s Decision Not To Testify

CBS News Texas states that Anthony’s attorneys said he ultimately decided against testifying during his murder trial because he was concerned that doing so could open the door for prosecutors to introduce information about his past. His attorneys said that concern came after the trial judge indicated he would have to allow such evidence.

Anthony’s appellate team is now pointing to that decision alongside the excluded evidence and jury selection as part of its larger argument that his trial departed from ordinary proceedings.

“I think the overall thing is how much this trial deviated from a normal trial,” Wilson said. “And that’s part of closure. That was part of the shadow docket, and those things collectively, we think, made it such a deviation that it wasn’t a fair trial.”

For now, the jury’s guilty verdict remains intact. The judge’s refusal to grant Anthony a new trial does not end his legal options, however, and his attorneys have made clear they intend to continue pursuing appellate review.

Whether those arguments ultimately warrant overturning Anthony’s conviction will now be a question for the appeals process.