Karmelo Anthony Guilty

[Anonymous]

30 years in 6x6 cell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The case was over when it was told that he was asked to leave the tent several times.

His witnesses said he started it. Game over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was never in any doubt. He should have taken a plea.

With all the public pressure, he might not have been offered a decent plea. I assume if they offered manslaughter, that would have been an attractive offer. Bet they didn’t offer anything short of murder.

Sure but the range for sentence for second degree murder is huge. We'll see what he gets in sentencing. Depends on some of the aggravating factors.

Maybe 20?

No way. He brought the knife . That is premeditation. And he started the fight. That is aggravation.

Boy is going away for a loooooonnnnnggggg time.

You also don't need premeditation for a murder charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was never in any doubt. He should have taken a plea.

With all the public pressure, he might not have been offered a decent plea. I assume if they offered manslaughter, that would have been an attractive offer. Bet they didn’t offer anything short of murder.

Sure but the range for sentence for second degree murder is huge. We'll see what he gets in sentencing. Depends on some of the aggravating factors.

Maybe 20?

No way. He brought the knife . That is premeditation. And he started the fight. That is aggravation.

Boy is going away for a loooooonnnnnggggg time.

Bringing a knife doesn't automatically prove premeditation, and starting a fight doesn't automatically make it murder.

[Anonymous]

Justice was served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was never in any doubt. He should have taken a plea.

With all the public pressure, he might not have been offered a decent plea. I assume if they offered manslaughter, that would have been an attractive offer. Bet they didn’t offer anything short of murder.

Sure but the range for sentence for second degree murder is huge. We'll see what he gets in sentencing. Depends on some of the aggravating factors.

Maybe 20?

No way. He brought the knife . That is premeditation. And he started the fight. That is aggravation.

Boy is going away for a loooooonnnnnggggg time.

Bringing a knife doesn't automatically prove premeditation, and starting a fight doesn't automatically make it murder.

Stabbing generally makes it murder. Hard to argue you weren't intending to cause death or previous bodily harm when you stab someone.

https://texascriminaldefensegroup.com/the-different-types-of-texas-homicide/

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

What mental state do you think is required under TX state law in this circumstance, specifically?

The defense didn't argue lack of intent, they argued self defense (and failed).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was never in any doubt. He should have taken a plea.

With all the public pressure, he might not have been offered a decent plea. I assume if they offered manslaughter, that would have been an attractive offer. Bet they didn’t offer anything short of murder.

Sure but the range for sentence for second degree murder is huge. We'll see what he gets in sentencing. Depends on some of the aggravating factors.

Maybe 20?

No way. He brought the knife . That is premeditation. And he started the fight. That is aggravation.

Boy is going away for a loooooonnnnnggggg time.

Bringing a knife doesn't automatically prove premeditation, and starting a fight doesn't automatically make it murder.

Stabbing generally makes it murder. Hard to argue you weren't intending to cause death or previous bodily harm when you stab someone.

https://texascriminaldefensegroup.com/the-different-types-of-texas-homicide/

I agree that stabbing someone can support a murder conviction. My point is that it doesn't automatically make every stabbing murder. That's why juries are instructed on lesser-included offenses like manslaughter in appropriate cases like this one. After watching the trial, I think the evidence supported manslaughter more than murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was never in any doubt. He should have taken a plea.

With all the public pressure, he might not have been offered a decent plea. I assume if they offered manslaughter, that would have been an attractive offer. Bet they didn’t offer anything short of murder.

Sure but the range for sentence for second degree murder is huge. We'll see what he gets in sentencing. Depends on some of the aggravating factors.

Maybe 20?

No way. He brought the knife . That is premeditation. And he started the fight. That is aggravation.

Boy is going away for a loooooonnnnnggggg time.

Bringing a knife doesn't automatically prove premeditation, and starting a fight doesn't automatically make it murder.

Stabbing generally makes it murder. Hard to argue you weren't intending to cause death or previous bodily harm when you stab someone.

https://texascriminaldefensegroup.com/the-different-types-of-texas-homicide/

As a prosecutor, it’s wild to see how capacious the Texas murder statute is. Texas essentially lumps 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter into a single offense that it calls Murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was never in any doubt. He should have taken a plea.

With all the public pressure, he might not have been offered a decent plea. I assume if they offered manslaughter, that would have been an attractive offer. Bet they didn’t offer anything short of murder.

Sure but the range for sentence for second degree murder is huge. We'll see what he gets in sentencing. Depends on some of the aggravating factors.

Maybe 20?

No way. He brought the knife . That is premeditation. And he started the fight. That is aggravation.

Boy is going away for a loooooonnnnnggggg time.

Bringing a knife doesn't automatically prove premeditation, and starting a fight doesn't automatically make it murder.

Stabbing generally makes it murder. Hard to argue you weren't intending to cause death or previous bodily harm when you stab someone.

https://texascriminaldefensegroup.com/the-different-types-of-texas-homicide/

As a prosecutor, it’s wild to see how capacious the Texas murder statute is. Texas essentially lumps 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter into a single offense that it calls Murder.

The sentencing range of 5-99 is pretty wild. Seems like it gives judges a lot of power?

[Anonymous]

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.

What mental state do you think is required under TX state law in this circumstance, specifically?

The defense didn't argue lack of intent, they argued self defense (and failed).

I'm not saying he lacked all intent. I'm saying I think the circumstances supported a manslaughter conviction rather than murder. To me, there was enough evidence of a sudden confrontation and poor judgment that I have reasonable doubt about the murder charge. The fact that the defense focused on self-defense doesn't answer that question, it just means that's the theory they chose to present, and I don't think it was an effective one.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

What mental state do you think is required under TX state law in this circumstance, specifically?

The defense didn't argue lack of intent, they argued self defense (and failed).

I'm not saying he lacked all intent. I'm saying I think the circumstances supported a manslaughter conviction rather than murder. To me, there was enough evidence of a sudden confrontation and poor judgment that I have reasonable doubt about the murder charge. The fact that the defense focused on self-defense doesn't answer that question, it just means that's the theory they chose to present, and I don't think it was an effective one.

Voluntary manslaughter generally involves adequate provocation. Pretty hard to argue it if he started the fight.

[Anonymous]

I believe the verdict was just. I was surprised they jumped immediately into sentencing and that KA had only one person speak on his behalf— his mother? Why not have coaches, teachers, classmates attest to his character and good intentions? Could they not find anyone other than his mom?