Karmelo Anthony Guilty

[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.

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.

[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.

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

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Prosecutor here. For those that are interested, this is a funky statutory and procedural scheme, but the net effect is that, if proven, the murder charge is functionally mitigated (in punishment) to something akin to manslaughter. He is still guilty of murder, but his punishment would be more in line with punishments you'd see for voluntary manslaughter in other states.

[Anonymous]

An open and shut case. Put him behind bars and throw away the key.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this national news?

Because a teen was stabbed, and died at a high school track meet. Not exactly an every day occurrence (thank god).

Guns happen more often than stabbings. RW could give two shits about any kids dying. MAGA and Alex Jones denied Sandy Hook still do complain about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An open and shut case. Put him behind bars and throw away the key.

I think his sentence should be substantial but I also think it's possible for him to be rehabilitated one day. That should be the objective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this national news?

Because a teen was stabbed, and died at a high school track meet. Not exactly an every day occurrence (thank god).

Guns happen more often than stabbings. RW could give two shits about any kids dying. MAGA and Alex Jones denied Sandy Hook still do complain about that.

WTH are you blathering about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An open and shut case. Put him behind bars and throw away the key.

I think his sentence should be substantial but I also think it's possible for him to be rehabilitated one day. That should be the objective.

Not really. If he’s “rehabilitated,” ok, I guess. But that shouldn’t be the driving motive behind the sentencing. It should be 💯 punitive.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Knowing you have a knife, provoking others, inviting them to get physical with you, doesn't make it seem very sudden or passionate. He clearly wanted trouble and found it. Lock him up and throw away the key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Prosecutor here. For those that are interested, this is a funky statutory and procedural scheme, but the net effect is that, if proven, the murder charge is functionally mitigated (in punishment) to something akin to manslaughter. He is still guilty of murder, but his punishment would be more in line with punishments you'd see for voluntary manslaughter in other states.

I hope the jury ignores the added passion defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Prosecutor here. For those that are interested, this is a funky statutory and procedural scheme, but the net effect is that, if proven, the murder charge is functionally mitigated (in punishment) to something akin to manslaughter. He is still guilty of murder, but his punishment would be more in line with punishments you'd see for voluntary manslaughter in other states.

I hope the jury ignores the added passion defense.

2 years would be a travesty. 99 years is probably too many, but 20-30 seems about right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Prosecutor here. For those that are interested, this is a funky statutory and procedural scheme, but the net effect is that, if proven, the murder charge is functionally mitigated (in punishment) to something akin to manslaughter. He is still guilty of murder, but his punishment would be more in line with punishments you'd see for voluntary manslaughter in other states.

I hope the jury ignores the added passion defense.

2 years would be a travesty. 99 years is probably too many, but 20-30 seems about right.

Agree.