DALLAS — Karmelo Anthony’s defense team is asking for a new murder trial and a new judge, alleging that prosecutors backed out of a secret deal in a way that prevented the Frisco teen from testifying that he acted in self-defense, according to motions filed Tuesday. Anthony, 19, was found guilty...
www.spokesman.com
Karmelo Anthony defense team seeks new trial in track meet murder case
By Jane Harper and Jamie Landers
Dallas Morning News
July 7, 2026
Updated Tue., July 7, 2026 at 9:34 p.m.
DALLAS – Karmelo Anthony’s defense team is asking for a new murder trial and a new judge, alleging that prosecutors backed out of a secret deal in a way that prevented the Frisco, Texas, teen from testifying that he acted in self-defense, according to motions filed Tuesday.
Anthony, 19, was found guilty of murdering 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at an April 2025 high school track meet in Frisco that both were set to compete in. The jury sentenced him last month to 35 years in prison.
In an emailed statement, the attorneys said the filings raise “constitutional and legal challenges” from trial. They also are seeking to have District Judge John Roach Jr. removed from presiding over any post-trial proceedings because of public statements he made after the trial that they alleged put his impartiality into question. Roach did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The case has drawn national attention from the start, spurring a flood of misinformation and racist vitriol online. Metcalf was white. Anthony is Black.
The much-anticipated trial was held last month in McKinney, with members of the public lining up hours before the courthouse opened to try to get a seat. Anthony’s lawyers at trial, Mike Howard and Toby Shook, argued he acted in self-defense when he stabbed Metcalf during a confrontation under a tent in the stands.
Anthony filed a notice of appeal a day after the verdict, which sent the case to the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas, where appellate justices will review the trial proceedings to affirm or overturn the jury’s decision. A new team of lawyers led by Dallas attorney Russell Wilson is representing Anthony in his appeal, and in the motions filed Tuesday.
Motion for a new trial
In the 63-page motion for a new trial, the most serious allegation made by the defense was an accusation that prosecutors reneged on an agreement reached before trial that led to a last-minute decision for Anthony not to testify.
The motion said prosecutors proposed that both sides promise to “try the case clean” and to stick to “what happened under the tent.” Bringing up the reputations or characters of Metcalf, Metcalf’s twin brother, Hunter Metcalf, and Anthony was out of bounds under the deal.
The defense followed this understanding, the filing said, and it shaped how they approached matters like jury selection, opening statements, testimony and cross-examination.
“From that point forward, the defense tried its case under that limitation, at every stage, in reliance on the bargain,” the motion said. “The defense let the State’s student witnesses leave the stand without confronting them with their own recorded statements to police – that Austin Metcalf was ‘kind of like the aggressive guy on the team,’ that he ‘got triggered,’ that ‘Austin and Hunter they’re not going to let you disrespect them.’ ”
On the final day of evidence in the trial, prosecutors told the defense team the agreement had “never contemplated a testifying defendant,” the filing states, and argued the defense had violated the agreement by mentioning in opening statements that Anthony played chess. The prosecution did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
If Anthony testified, the motion argued, prosecutors warned that the door to character and other possibly damaging information “would almost certainly open.” Given 10 minutes to decide whether to testify, according to the filing, Anthony chose not to take the witness stand.
The defense also argued that one of the jury instructions included by Roach encouraged the jury to disregard Anthony’s self-defense claim.
“The harm here is plain,” Anthony’s lawyers wrote. “Self-defense was the central contested issue at trial, and the State did not let the erroneous instruction lie: in closing argument, the prosecution affirmatively relied on the provocation instruction, urging the jury to invoke it to deny the Defendant his right of self-defense.”
The lawyers also argued that Anthony’s right to a public trial was violated by the judge’s strict courtroom rules on attendance and his camera ban.
The motion for a new judge
In their recusal motion, Anthony’s lawyers argued Roach should be prohibited from presiding over any post-trial hearings, including their motion for a new trial, because of public statements he made just days after the trial ended.
In a televised interview with WFAA two days after Anthony was convicted and sentenced, Roach was asked, “Did the jury get it right?” according to the motion. The judge answered, “Yeah, they did,” the document said.
When asked by the interviewer whether he thought Anthony received a fair trial, Roach said, “I certainly think he did,” according to the motion. He also said he “followed the law” and “did it to a T,” when he allowed prosecutors to strike the last three prospective Black jurors from serving on the panel.
Prosecutors told the judge they were striking them because they were all educators, and not because of their race. The defense objected, but Roach sided with prosecutors.
In a letter published on Collin County’s official government website, Roach, who is retiring at the end of the year, wrote that presiding over the trial was “one of the great honors of my judicial career” and that he believed it was handled fairly.
“The Court also publicly endorsed the correctness of the very verdict the motion for new trial asks it to set aside, stating that the jury reached the right result and that Mr. Anthony “committed a crime,” the motion said. “A judge who has publicly proclaimed the verdict correct cannot be expected to impartially decide a motion seeking to set that verdict aside.”
