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: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.

[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.

I agree. Added passion only applies when the victim does something that would cause even a normal person to lose their temper to such a degree that they become incapable of reflection. The classic examples are walking in on your spouse in bed with someone else or learning that someone assaulted your child. I don't think it should apply here.

[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

[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.

This seems like a classic case of reverse engineering - you have a desired outcome, and are torturing the facts to fit that outcome.

Also, if you really watched all the testimony, you are in dire need of a hobby, and to go outside and touch some grass.

[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: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.

[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: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.

That's the thing . . . the case itself--the facts and the governing law--are not divisive, or even particularly controversial. It's a clear-cut case of murder, based on the Texas statute. It's only when issues of race are interjected does it become divisive, which leads people to argue for outcomes (both ways) that the facts and law do not support.

[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.

This seems like a classic case of reverse engineering - you have a desired outcome, and are torturing the facts to fit that outcome.

Also, if you really watched all the testimony, you are in dire need of a hobby, and to go outside and touch some grass.

I don't mind people disagreeing with my opinion; that's what discussion is for. But once the conversation shifts from the evidence to personal insults about how someone spends their time, it usually means we've run out of substantive arguments. Have a good evening.

[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.

This seems like a classic case of reverse engineering - you have a desired outcome, and are torturing the facts to fit that outcome.

Also, if you really watched all the testimony, you are in dire need of a hobby, and to go outside and touch some grass.

I don't mind people disagreeing with my opinion; that's what discussion is for. But once the conversation shifts from the evidence to personal insults about how someone spends their time, it usually means we've run out of substantive arguments. Have a good evening.

You think that was a personal insult? Yikes. Maybe the internet is not for you.

[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: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.

[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.

This seems like a classic case of reverse engineering - you have a desired outcome, and are torturing the facts to fit that outcome.

Also, if you really watched all the testimony, you are in dire need of a hobby, and to go outside and touch some grass.

I don't mind people disagreeing with my opinion; that's what discussion is for. But once the conversation shifts from the evidence to personal insults about how someone spends their time, it usually means we've run out of substantive arguments. Have a good evening.

You think that was a personal insult? Yikes. Maybe the internet is not for you.

If "touch grass" is the strongest rebuttal to my opinion, I'll take that as a sign we've exhausted the substantive arguments.

[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: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.

That's a fair perspective. While we may not agree on the legal conclusion, I understand your point

[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: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.

The family rolled the dice banking on a sympathetic jury and lost big time. The facts speak for themselves here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does this make you so happy?

Because it takes a young black male off the streets?

Listen you racist POS, it is young, Black male.

Racists like you are all the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does this make you so happy?

Because it takes a young black male off the streets?

Listen you racist POS, it is young, Black male.

Racists like you are all the same.

Brutal killers don't deserve much respect, just so you know.

[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.

This seems like a classic case of reverse engineering - you have a desired outcome, and are torturing the facts to fit that outcome.

Also, if you really watched all the testimony, you are in dire need of a hobby, and to go outside and touch some grass.

I don't mind people disagreeing with my opinion; that's what discussion is for. But once the conversation shifts from the evidence to personal insults about how someone spends their time, it usually means we've run out of substantive arguments. Have a good evening.

You think that was a personal insult? Yikes. Maybe the internet is not for you.

If "touch grass" is the strongest rebuttal to my opinion, I'll take that as a sign we've exhausted the substantive arguments.

Well, no - the strongest rebuttals to your opinion, offered by numerous people (including the prosecutor) are that you misunderstand the Texas law, you let your preexisting preferences dictate how you view the case, and that you have succumbed to the racial context of the case and either can't or won't view the facts dispassionately. To name just a few.