Karmelo Anthony Guilty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

There was some coach/teacher that did testify on his character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I guess if the jury has to do sentencing too (wild how different this is by jurisdiction) they want to get it over with as fast as possible.so they can send the jury home.

Defense should definitely be prepared to go in sentencing in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I guess if the jury has to do sentencing too (wild how different this is by jurisdiction) they want to get it over with as fast as possible.so they can send the jury home.

Defense should definitely be prepared to go in sentencing in this case.

I agree the defense should have been better prepared, but this system (going right into sentencing after a verdict) sounds horrific to me. It has no redeeming qualities, other than perhaps being fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I guess if the jury has to do sentencing too (wild how different this is by jurisdiction) they want to get it over with as fast as possible.so they can send the jury home.

Defense should definitely be prepared to go in sentencing in this case.

I agree the defense should have been better prepared, but this system (going right into sentencing after a verdict) sounds horrific to me. It has no redeeming qualities, other than perhaps being fast.

Makes one wonder what the family did with all their gofundme money. Guess they didn't spend it on adequate defense. Choices were made.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

We obviously viewed the evidence differently. I don't think the sequence of events was as clear-cut as simply saying he "started the fight." There was testimony that Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, and then a physical shove before the stabbing. People can interpret those events differently, and I came away believing the circumstances supported a manslaughter conviction. We're probably not going to agree, and that's okay.

[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.

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.

We obviously viewed the evidence differently. I don't think the sequence of events was as clear-cut as simply saying he "started the fight." There was testimony that Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, and then a physical shove before the stabbing. People can interpret those events differently, and I came away believing the circumstances supported a manslaughter conviction. We're probably not going to agree, and that's okay.

He approached him in their team tent. Karmelo had no business there, his presence was the provocation and he was asked to leave multiple times. What's to disagree with?

[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.

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.

We obviously viewed the evidence differently. I don't think the sequence of events was as clear-cut as simply saying he "started the fight." There was testimony that Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, and then a physical shove before the stabbing. People can interpret those events differently, and I came away believing the circumstances supported a manslaughter conviction. We're probably not going to agree, and that's okay.

I really would like to understand your position. What mental state requirement do you think the State was obligated to prove that it failed to prove?

[Anonymous]

The judge gave the jury the opportunity to consider a manslaughter conviction but they convicted him for murder.

[Anonymous]

I had a freaking update on my phone during my dentist appointment this afternoon. Not something I wanted, I can tell you.

[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.

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.

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

We obviously viewed the evidence differently. I don't think the sequence of events was as clear-cut as simply saying he "started the fight." There was testimony that Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, and then a physical shove before the stabbing. People can interpret those events differently, and I came away believing the circumstances supported a manslaughter conviction. We're probably not going to agree, and that's okay.

I really would like to understand your position. What mental state requirement do you think the State was obligated to prove that it failed to prove?

Maybe I didn't express my point very well. I'm not claiming there's a specific mental state element that the State completely failed to prove. My point is that, after watching the entire trial, I don't think the overall facts and circumstances justified a murder conviction. The sequence of events: a confrontation, a verbal exchange, a shove, and a stabbing that happened within seconds, led me to believe manslaughter was the more appropriate verdict. I understand why others disagree, but that's simply how I interpreted the evidence. I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me; I'm giving my opinion based on the testimony presented. I've posted several times my thoughts (responding to you and another person too); if you don't understand my position, that's OK.

[Anonymous]

State agrees to add 'sudden passion' addition to punishment

Judge John Roach was informed that the state agreed to add 'sudden passion' to the punishment phase of Karmelo Anthony's sentencing.

Sudden passion, as explained by prosecutor Dewey Mitchell during voir dire, 'is a situation when someone is in such a state of emotion, based on something that just happened, that they don't have time to cool off.'


If the jury agrees to the sudden passion argument, Anthony's charge will be reduced to a second degree felony, which will lower the punishment range from two to 20 years in prison.

If sudden passion is agreed, Anthony would also be required to pay a $10,000 fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My heart breaks for his family. I pray the appeals process is swift.

Does your heart break for the victim’s family? That’s where my sympathy lies.

you seriously can’t tell that’s a troll? Or is it you sockpuppeting as a “lib”?

No you idiot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does this make you so happy?

Because it takes a young black male off the streets?

Correction: it takes one more thug off the streets.