A Texas teenager convicted of fatally stabbing a 17-year-old athlete at a high school track meet is arguing that a judge did not fairly preside over the high-profile case and is asking for a new trial.
Karmelo Anthony, now 19, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years in prison after a Collin County jury in June rejected his claims of self-defense during a confrontation with Austin Metcalf in the stadium bleachers last year.
Jurors deliberated for less than three hours before returning the verdict. The case attracted attention in part because of a flood of social media posts that amplified the killing in racial terms. Anthony is Black; Metcalf was white. Lawyers on both sides, however, told jurors the tragedy had nothing to do with race.
The incident began when Anthony sat under the Memorial High School tent that was perched in the bleachers. Austin Metcalf and others had repeatedly told Anthony to leave, witnesses testified, leading to an escalating confrontation.
Anthony did not testify during the trial. During the trial, students described a heated exchange over Anthony’s refusal on a rainy spring day to leave a tent that belonged to Metcalf’s team. The teens went to different high schools.
Related: Erdogan pushes Trump on Iran dialogue
Prosecutors said Anthony provoked Metcalf, and witnesses testified that Anthony was the aggressor. Anthony at one point reached inside a bag and replied: “Touch me and see what happens,” according to a police report.
Metcalf pushed Anthony, according to witnesses, who said Anthony then pulled out a knife and stabbed him in the chest.
Hearings on Anthony’s requests for a retrial and a new judge were set to begin Wednesday in suburban Dallas. Anthony’s legal team has argued that a retrial is warranted in part because state District Judge John Roach enforced overly strict courtroom rules and gave incomplete instructions to the jury that convicted the teenager at the end of the nearly weeklong trial.
The request for a new judge highlights the difficulty of securing an impartial hearing when a case has been so widely discussed online. Public opinion, amplified by social media, often creates an environment where the legal system must work harder to maintain the appearance of fairness.
While the defense focuses on procedural issues and the judge’s conduct, the prosecution maintains that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. The next steps in the legal process will determine whether the conviction stands or if a new trial will be granted.