Karmelo Anthony Guilty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

To establish the elements of murder, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim. The Texas murder statute doesn't require proof of intent to kill. Do you think that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karmelo Anthony intended to cause serious bodily harm to Austin Metcalf?

I'm not claiming the jury had to convict on manslaughter. I'm saying I think they should have. The fact that the judge instructed the jury on manslaughter is significant. Judges do not give lesser-included offense instructions just because the defense asks for them. There must be a legal basis in the evidence for the jury to rationally consider that lesser offense. In this case, the judge denied the defense's request to include criminally negligent homicide but did allow manslaughter, meaning the judge concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider that option. The jury evaluated the same evidence and chose murder. I simply interpret the sequence of events differently and believe the circumstances fit manslaughter better.

But WHY? How do the facts of this case establish manslaughter but not murder?

Is it that you just think murder is too harsh and manslaughter feels like a better fit?

No, it's not because murder feels too harsh. It's because of how I interpreted the facts. There was a confrontation that escalated within seconds: Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, a shove, and then the stabbing. Looking at that entire sequence, I came away believing this was a reckless, rapidly escalating encounter that fit manslaughter better than murder. The judge believed there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter. The jury chose murder. Had I been a juror, I would have chosen manslaughter.

You watched it and missed that he was asked to leave 15 times? That wasn't all within seconds.

I didn't miss that testimony. My point is that "around 15 times" was one witness's characterization, not an objectively counted number. More importantly, my opinion isn't based on that single fact. I looked at the entire sequence of events and interpreted it differently. You may see a prolonged confrontation that supports a murder conviction; I saw a rapidly escalating encounter that, in my view, fit manslaughter better. That's why reasonable people can disagree.

It wasn't seconds. It was several minutes. Your analysis is pretty flawed.

Fair enough. I should have been clearer. I’m not saying the entire interaction lasted only seconds. I’m saying the physical escalation from the shove/contact to the stabbing appeared to happen very quickly. I still interpret the overall sequence differently than you do, and I still think manslaughter was the better fit. But I understand why others see it differently.

The reason you're getting so much pushback is because there are only two ways to get to manslaughter here, and neither of them fits with the facts as you're describing them.

The first way is imperfect self-defense, which requires that Karmelo Anthony held a genuine but objectively unreasonable belief that he needed to stab Austin Metcalf to prevent Metcalf from using a similar level of force against him. But Metcalf was unarmed and wasn't using anything close to lethal force against Anthony.

The only other path to manslaughter is if you believe that Karmelo Anthony acted recklessly as to Metcalf, but did not intend to kill him OR cause him serious bodily harm. But the evidence is overwhelming that Anthony intended, at a minimum, to cause Metcalf serious bodily injury.

I understand your instinct that this is manslaughter, and in a jurisdiction that uses the common law definition of manslaughter (that is, the defendant had the intent to harm the victim, but not kill him, and that results in the victim's death), you'd have a good point. The problem is that, in Texas, that conduct constitutes murder.

That's a thoughtful explanation, and I appreciate it. It's possible that my intuition aligns more with the common understanding of manslaughter than with Texas's statutory definition. It's clearly a very divisive case, and I understand why people have such different interpretations of both the facts and the law. It's an incredibly tragic situation all around.

PP here (I'm also the poster that identified themselves as a prosecutor). I don't necessarily agree with your legal analysis, but I think your instinct that this outcome feels harsh is a reasonable one. In many places, this would be resolved a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter and a 10-15 year sentence. The whole thing feels so unnecessary and senseless.

He didn't plea guilty. Ergo, he rolled the dice.

His ego inflated parents and lawyer took him for a ride big time. Could have pleaded out.

All his buddies lying on the witness stand and easily refuted weren’t a good look either.

The friends were as stupid as KA. His parents birthed him in elementary school by the looks of it. Stole 600,000 and bought a blinged out car. Guess they can visit him in prison in it.

Car AND house. Despicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

To establish the elements of murder, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim. The Texas murder statute doesn't require proof of intent to kill. Do you think that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karmelo Anthony intended to cause serious bodily harm to Austin Metcalf?

I'm not claiming the jury had to convict on manslaughter. I'm saying I think they should have. The fact that the judge instructed the jury on manslaughter is significant. Judges do not give lesser-included offense instructions just because the defense asks for them. There must be a legal basis in the evidence for the jury to rationally consider that lesser offense. In this case, the judge denied the defense's request to include criminally negligent homicide but did allow manslaughter, meaning the judge concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider that option. The jury evaluated the same evidence and chose murder. I simply interpret the sequence of events differently and believe the circumstances fit manslaughter better.

But WHY? How do the facts of this case establish manslaughter but not murder?

Is it that you just think murder is too harsh and manslaughter feels like a better fit?

No, it's not because murder feels too harsh. It's because of how I interpreted the facts. There was a confrontation that escalated within seconds: Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, a shove, and then the stabbing. Looking at that entire sequence, I came away believing this was a reckless, rapidly escalating encounter that fit manslaughter better than murder. The judge believed there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter. The jury chose murder. Had I been a juror, I would have chosen manslaughter.

As someone has already pointed out, Metcalf approached him in the team tent. Anthony had no business being in the team's tent, and especially not with a knife. It was 100% an act of provocation on Anthony's part. He was asked to leave several times. There are some clear details that you're refusing to see for whatever reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Impact statements from Metcalf's family after sentencing:

His Aunt:
"The impact of his death is permanent," she said. "We will never know what he could have been."

She said her heart breaks for Metcalf's twin brother.

"Why could you not have just left?" she asked. "Reporters will move to other stories. For our family, this is not a story. It is a reality forever."

His Mother:
"Now I only have videos and memories of his laugh," she told Anthony.

She talked about the morning of the track meet. She said she packed her son a snack and gave him a hug without knowing it would be the last time she'd ever feel his arms around her.

"You may have been given a sentence of 35 years. You should feel lucky. I've been sentenced to a lifetime without my son," she said.

His father:
"Since the day he first grabbed my finger, he had my heart with it," he said.

He talked about the joy he felt while watching both of his sons on the field at the same time.

Remorseless murdering teen didn’t shed a tear upon hearing any of that. Only when sentenced to 35 years, which is frankly short and better not be shortened more.

What a flamboyantly misguided family and teen.

Texas…up for parole after half. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

To establish the elements of murder, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim. The Texas murder statute doesn't require proof of intent to kill. Do you think that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karmelo Anthony intended to cause serious bodily harm to Austin Metcalf?

I'm not claiming the jury had to convict on manslaughter. I'm saying I think they should have. The fact that the judge instructed the jury on manslaughter is significant. Judges do not give lesser-included offense instructions just because the defense asks for them. There must be a legal basis in the evidence for the jury to rationally consider that lesser offense. In this case, the judge denied the defense's request to include criminally negligent homicide but did allow manslaughter, meaning the judge concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider that option. The jury evaluated the same evidence and chose murder. I simply interpret the sequence of events differently and believe the circumstances fit manslaughter better.

But WHY? How do the facts of this case establish manslaughter but not murder?

Is it that you just think murder is too harsh and manslaughter feels like a better fit?

No, it's not because murder feels too harsh. It's because of how I interpreted the facts. There was a confrontation that escalated within seconds: Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, a shove, and then the stabbing. Looking at that entire sequence, I came away believing this was a reckless, rapidly escalating encounter that fit manslaughter better than murder. The judge believed there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter. The jury chose murder. Had I been a juror, I would have chosen manslaughter.

You watched it and missed that he was asked to leave 15 times? That wasn't all within seconds.

I didn't miss that testimony. My point is that "around 15 times" was one witness's characterization, not an objectively counted number. More importantly, my opinion isn't based on that single fact. I looked at the entire sequence of events and interpreted it differently. You may see a prolonged confrontation that supports a murder conviction; I saw a rapidly escalating encounter that, in my view, fit manslaughter better. That's why reasonable people can disagree.

It wasn't seconds. It was several minutes. Your analysis is pretty flawed.

Fair enough. I should have been clearer. I’m not saying the entire interaction lasted only seconds. I’m saying the physical escalation from the shove/contact to the stabbing appeared to happen very quickly. I still interpret the overall sequence differently than you do, and I still think manslaughter was the better fit. But I understand why others see it differently.

The reason you're getting so much pushback is because there are only two ways to get to manslaughter here, and neither of them fits with the facts as you're describing them.

The first way is imperfect self-defense, which requires that Karmelo Anthony held a genuine but objectively unreasonable belief that he needed to stab Austin Metcalf to prevent Metcalf from using a similar level of force against him. But Metcalf was unarmed and wasn't using anything close to lethal force against Anthony.

The only other path to manslaughter is if you believe that Karmelo Anthony acted recklessly as to Metcalf, but did not intend to kill him OR cause him serious bodily harm. But the evidence is overwhelming that Anthony intended, at a minimum, to cause Metcalf serious bodily injury.

I understand your instinct that this is manslaughter, and in a jurisdiction that uses the common law definition of manslaughter (that is, the defendant had the intent to harm the victim, but not kill him, and that results in the victim's death), you'd have a good point. The problem is that, in Texas, that conduct constitutes murder.

That's a thoughtful explanation, and I appreciate it. It's possible that my intuition aligns more with the common understanding of manslaughter than with Texas's statutory definition. It's clearly a very divisive case, and I understand why people have such different interpretations of both the facts and the law. It's an incredibly tragic situation all around.

PP here (I'm also the poster that identified themselves as a prosecutor). I don't necessarily agree with your legal analysis, but I think your instinct that this outcome feels harsh is a reasonable one. In many places, this would be resolved a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter and a 10-15 year sentence. The whole thing feels so unnecessary and senseless.

10 years for killing a 17 year old unprovoked with a knife seems like too little, though o agree the potential of 99 years is absurd.

Why? If this person is so dangerous that he carries a knife around and his emotions can get overwhelmed enough for him to kill in a matter of minutes over a silly disagreement, why shouldn't this person be in jail for the rest of his life? This is exactly the kind of person that can't live in a civil society.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

To establish the elements of murder, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim. The Texas murder statute doesn't require proof of intent to kill. Do you think that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karmelo Anthony intended to cause serious bodily harm to Austin Metcalf?

I'm not claiming the jury had to convict on manslaughter. I'm saying I think they should have. The fact that the judge instructed the jury on manslaughter is significant. Judges do not give lesser-included offense instructions just because the defense asks for them. There must be a legal basis in the evidence for the jury to rationally consider that lesser offense. In this case, the judge denied the defense's request to include criminally negligent homicide but did allow manslaughter, meaning the judge concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider that option. The jury evaluated the same evidence and chose murder. I simply interpret the sequence of events differently and believe the circumstances fit manslaughter better.

But WHY? How do the facts of this case establish manslaughter but not murder?

Is it that you just think murder is too harsh and manslaughter feels like a better fit?

No, it's not because murder feels too harsh. It's because of how I interpreted the facts. There was a confrontation that escalated within seconds: Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, a shove, and then the stabbing. Looking at that entire sequence, I came away believing this was a reckless, rapidly escalating encounter that fit manslaughter better than murder. The judge believed there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter. The jury chose murder. Had I been a juror, I would have chosen manslaughter.

As someone has already pointed out, Metcalf approached him in the team tent. Anthony had no business being in the team's tent, and especially not with a knife. It was 100% an act of provocation on Anthony's part. He was asked to leave several times. There are some clear details that you're refusing to see for whatever reason.

Picking a fight over Karmelo being in the wrong tent is insane behavior.

[Anonymous]

The statement of Austin’s Dad

[Anonymous]

As a parent it makes me so sad. Both too young to lose their futures.

[Anonymous]

Karmelo’s parents made this 10 times worse than this had to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

To establish the elements of murder, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim. The Texas murder statute doesn't require proof of intent to kill. Do you think that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karmelo Anthony intended to cause serious bodily harm to Austin Metcalf?

I'm not claiming the jury had to convict on manslaughter. I'm saying I think they should have. The fact that the judge instructed the jury on manslaughter is significant. Judges do not give lesser-included offense instructions just because the defense asks for them. There must be a legal basis in the evidence for the jury to rationally consider that lesser offense. In this case, the judge denied the defense's request to include criminally negligent homicide but did allow manslaughter, meaning the judge concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider that option. The jury evaluated the same evidence and chose murder. I simply interpret the sequence of events differently and believe the circumstances fit manslaughter better.

But WHY? How do the facts of this case establish manslaughter but not murder?

Is it that you just think murder is too harsh and manslaughter feels like a better fit?

No, it's not because murder feels too harsh. It's because of how I interpreted the facts. There was a confrontation that escalated within seconds: Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, a shove, and then the stabbing. Looking at that entire sequence, I came away believing this was a reckless, rapidly escalating encounter that fit manslaughter better than murder. The judge believed there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter. The jury chose murder. Had I been a juror, I would have chosen manslaughter.

As someone has already pointed out, Metcalf approached him in the team tent. Anthony had no business being in the team's tent, and especially not with a knife. It was 100% an act of provocation on Anthony's part. He was asked to leave several times. There are some clear details that you're refusing to see for whatever reason.

Picking a fight over Karmelo being in the wrong tent is insane behavior.

I'm pretty sure the fight was picked by Karmelo when he entered the tent with a knife and refused to leave. Please tell me you're a troll, because if not, you're wearing some serious blinders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Karmelo’s parents made this 10 times worse than this had to be.

His parents didn’t even come back to the courtroom for the victim impact statements. I wonder what was going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not all young black men are thugs. Some come from educated good families, but get influenced by the wrong crowd online. Thats what it looked like happened here. 35 years is long enough.

The family took the money raised for their son's defense and bought an expensive house and car. That does not seem like a good family to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

To establish the elements of murder, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim. The Texas murder statute doesn't require proof of intent to kill. Do you think that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karmelo Anthony intended to cause serious bodily harm to Austin Metcalf?

I'm not claiming the jury had to convict on manslaughter. I'm saying I think they should have. The fact that the judge instructed the jury on manslaughter is significant. Judges do not give lesser-included offense instructions just because the defense asks for them. There must be a legal basis in the evidence for the jury to rationally consider that lesser offense. In this case, the judge denied the defense's request to include criminally negligent homicide but did allow manslaughter, meaning the judge concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider that option. The jury evaluated the same evidence and chose murder. I simply interpret the sequence of events differently and believe the circumstances fit manslaughter better.

But WHY? How do the facts of this case establish manslaughter but not murder?

Is it that you just think murder is too harsh and manslaughter feels like a better fit?

No, it's not because murder feels too harsh. It's because of how I interpreted the facts. There was a confrontation that escalated within seconds: Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, a shove, and then the stabbing. Looking at that entire sequence, I came away believing this was a reckless, rapidly escalating encounter that fit manslaughter better than murder. The judge believed there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter. The jury chose murder. Had I been a juror, I would have chosen manslaughter.

As someone has already pointed out, Metcalf approached him in the team tent. Anthony had no business being in the team's tent, and especially not with a knife. It was 100% an act of provocation on Anthony's part. He was asked to leave several times. There are some clear details that you're refusing to see for whatever reason.

Picking a fight over Karmelo being in the wrong tent is insane behavior.

I'm pretty sure the fight was picked by Karmelo when he entered the tent with a knife and refused to leave. Please tell me you're a troll, because if not, you're wearing some serious blinders.

Agreed. Kamelo wanted that fight, wanted to stab whoever it was who confronted him for being in the wrong tent. Definitely premeditated on KA's part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The statement of Austin’s Dad

Excellent statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not all young black men are thugs. Some come from educated good families, but get influenced by the wrong crowd online. Thats what it looked like happened here. 35 years is long enough.

The family took the money raised for their son's defense and bought an expensive house and car. That does not seem like a good family to me.

That's not true and has been debunked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not all young black men are thugs. Some come from educated good families, but get influenced by the wrong crowd online. Thats what it looked like happened here. 35 years is long enough.

The family took the money raised for their son's defense and bought an expensive house and car. That does not seem like a good family to me.

That's not true and has been debunked.

Dp- i was not aware of that. Do you happen to know where or who de bunked it?