Karmelo Anthony is seeking a new trial in Texas after former defense lawyers testified that a dispute over an unwritten agreement influenced his decision not to testify. The hearing concerns whether prosecutors and the original defense team reached an oral agreement to exclude potentially damaging character evidence. Anthony was convicted in June and sentenced to 35 years in prison for the fatal stabbing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a Frisco track meet. Retired District Judge Michael Chitty is expected to rule under a deadline set by Texas law.
The hearing returned to court in McKinney after Judge Sid Harle removed Judge John Roach, who presided over the original trial, from remaining proceedings. Harle found that an outside observer could question Roach’s impartiality after he publicly said the jury “got it right” and defended several trial decisions.
| 1) | The disputed oral agreement |
| 2) | Why Anthony did not testify |
| 3) | Other constitutional claims |
| 4) | Testimony from former lawyers |
| 5) | The ruling deadline and appeal |
The disputed oral agreement
The central issue is an oral agreement between Anthony’s original defense team and prosecutors. The lawyers generally understood that it would prevent jurors from hearing potentially damaging character evidence about Anthony and Metcalf’s side. Former lead defense attorney Mike Howard testified that he believed Anthony could describe the confrontation under the tent while remaining protected by the agreement.
Prosecutor Bill Wirske described the agreement as mutual but said the state did not believe it covered Anthony’s testimony. Prosecutors argued that the arrangement kept jurors from hearing allegations concerning Anthony’s history with knives and violence. Anthony’s new lawyers contend that it also excluded school records, social-media posts and videos they say could support his self-defense claim by showing prior aggressive behavior by Austin Metcalf and his twin brother, Hunter Metcalf. The court has not made findings on those allegations.
Why Anthony did not testify
The dispute surfaced on the final day of trial, according to testimony from Howard and former defense attorney Toby Shook. Prosecutors said the defense had opened the door to character evidence through a reference to Anthony’s chess club in opening statements. They maintained that the oral agreement did not apply if Anthony took the stand.
Shook testified that the defense expected Anthony to testify in support of self-defense. During a break, lawyers told Anthony that Roach said he could not enforce the unwritten agreement and would decide objections based on the evidence presented in court. Shook said Anthony feared prosecutors would find a reason to introduce the excluded material. Anthony ultimately chose not to testify because he was uncertain whether his testimony would expose him to that evidence.
Other constitutional claims
Anthony’s motion also argues that restrictions on courtroom access violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The motion contends that jury instructions limited the jurors’ ability to consider his self-defense claim.
Howard testified that the defense, prosecutors and Roach held more than a dozen off-the-record meetings before trial. He said no pretrial motions were formally filed because the parties submitted materials directly to the judge. The defense discussed limiting public access because of security concerns, but no Sixth Amendment waiver was entered on the record. Howard said the decision not to use an overflow room involved technology concerns rather than a specific security threat.
Testimony from former lawyers
Howard and Shook told the court that the original defense team understood Anthony could describe the confrontation without triggering the character evidence covered by the agreement. Their accounts support Anthony’s argument that the dispute altered the defense strategy at a critical stage.
Shook said he was surprised when prosecutors changed their position on the final day. Wirske said the state and defense agreed to keep character evidence away from jurors but disagreed over whether Anthony’s testimony fell within that understanding. Howard acknowledged that the lawyers had never expressly agreed on whether a testifying defendant would be covered and said he could not determine whether prosecutors acted in bad faith.
The ruling deadline and appeal
Anthony, 19, was convicted by a Collin County jury in June and received a 35-year prison sentence for killing Austin Metcalf during the track meet in Frisco. Anthony has maintained that he acted in self-defense. Chitty is handling the new-trial hearing after Harle removed Roach from the remaining trial-court proceedings.
Under Texas rules, Chitty must rule on the motion by Monday. If he does not grant it by that deadline, the motion will be denied by operation of law and Anthony’s direct appeal will continue.
| 1 | Anthony is asking for a new trial after his 35-year murder sentence. |
| 2 | Former defense lawyers said an oral evidence agreement became disputed on the final day of trial. |
| 3 | Anthony did not testify after being told the judge could not enforce the unwritten agreement. |
| 4 | The motion also alleges violations involving public courtroom access and self-defense instructions. |
| 5 | A ruling is due by Monday, or the motion will be denied by operation of law. |
Summary
The new-trial request turns on whether the prosecution and defense shared an understanding that allowed Anthony to testify without exposing him to excluded character evidence. Former defense lawyers said the late dispute affected his decision not to take the stand, while the prosecution maintains that the agreement did not cover his testimony. The court must decide whether that dispute and the other constitutional claims warrant a new trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Karmelo Anthony seeking a new trial?
He argues that a dispute over an unwritten evidence agreement affected his decision not to testify and that other trial procedures violated his constitutional rights.
What was the oral agreement about?
The agreement was intended to keep potentially damaging character evidence about both sides from the jury. The parties disagreed over whether it covered Anthony’s testimony.
When will the court decide the motion?
Retired District Judge Michael Chitty must rule by Monday under Texas rules. Without a favorable ruling, the motion will be denied by operation of law and Anthony’s direct appeal will continue.