Karmelo Anthony's 35-year prison sentence for the fatal stabbing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf has sparked a renewed controversy, with his defence attorneys filing a motion to overturn the conviction and have the judge step down. At its centre is a disputed agreement made by prosecutors during off-the-record discussions, which allegedly promised not to introduce character-related evidence. However, on the final day of testimony, this 'unwritten pact' was purportedly breached, prompting Anthony's lawyers to claim coercion and a violation of their client's constitutional rights.
The defence team asserts that an unwritten agreement, made during private discussions between prosecutors and the defence, was not honoured when character-related evidence was introduced on the final day of testimony. This shift allegedly allowed for extraneous-offence evidence to be considered, prompting Anthony to waive his right to testify. His lawyers argue that this coerced him into not speaking in his own defence and that it infringed upon his rights under the Sixth Amendment.
The defence also contends that restrictions on camera and streaming access during the trial constituted a deprivation of their client's constitutional right to a public trial, while an improper advisement regarding self-defence was given to the jury. Given that self-defence formed the central argument in Anthony's case, his lawyers claim this error necessitates a new trial.
The high-profile case has ignited intense debate within the US, particularly online, over its perceived racial dimensions, with many on the right promoting narratives that were eventually deemed racist and inflammatory. Following the jury's decision to impose the 35-year prison sentence, the district attorney stated 'justice was served', but the defence team now challenges this assertion.
As the case continues to unfold, the Collin County District Attorney’s office has yet to respond to requests for comment regarding the defence lawyer’s assertions. The controversy surrounding Anthony's conviction also drew attention during jury selection when three African-American individuals were struck from the jury, with prosecutors attributing their removal to non-racial motivations.
The defence team is now seeking not only a new trial but also the recusal of the state judge overseeing the case, citing concerns over judicial impartiality and fairness in the proceedings so far.