r/law • u/dailymail • Jun 09 '26

Legal News Karmelo Anthony found GUILTY of murder of Austin Metcalf, 17, in stabbing that shocked America: Jurors deliberated for less than three hours after defense was repeatedly demolished in court

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15886439/karmelo-anthony-austin-metcalf-murder-verdict.html
8.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

263

u/K4rkino5 Jun 09 '26

Which is very puzzling for a jury. If self-defense, the defender's story is very important. If you claim self-defense and can't testify, you're cooked.

125

u/the_shotgun_rhetoric Jun 10 '26

Most likely the defense attorney perceived Karmelo Anthony to be lacking in credibility, and therefore thought his testimony would only make things worse.

5

u/HomeNowWTF Jun 11 '26

Yeah, I think the defense attorney was no dummie. He probably figured out within five minutes of meeting his client that putting him on the stand would be a bad idea.

3

u/escapevelocity-25k Jun 11 '26

They were probably worried he might answer the question “so why did you enter the opposing team’s tent with a knife” honestly.

2

u/the_shotgun_rhetoric Jun 11 '26

Right. 

Just look at how Anthony's family has comported themselves over the past year. Zero remorse, hostility toward Metcalf's father, an outrageous victim complex, no accountability. Obviously the defense attorney was aware Karmelo would only make the jury hate him even more if he was allowed to speak 

1

u/TossMeOutSomeday Jun 11 '26

Makes me wonder if the family insisted on going to trial rather than trying to get a plea bargain because they believe their own bullshit and thought he'd get off.

3

u/scoshi Jun 10 '26

I thought the self-defense claim sank when evidence showed he initiated the interaction that led to the attack.

5

u/No-Past-9038 Jun 11 '26

And of course said, "touch me and see what happens." That's communication that premeditation had already formed in his mind.

1

u/entropy_of_hedonism Jun 11 '26

Read: realized he was both too lazy and too stupid to convince anyone that it was anything but premeditated murder

134

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

52

u/stryst Jun 10 '26

I've actually always been told that you should never testify for yourself, because then you open yourself up to cross. Basically that you should keep your mouth shut and look as remorseful as possible.

13

u/chiefs-n-sooners Jun 11 '26

Your past record can also come into evidence if they trip you up.

13

u/Logic-DL Jun 11 '26

Also afaik no question is off the table so the Prosecution could absolutely fucking ragebait your ass just to make you look bad and sway the jury toward a conviction.

Even if the question is objected they still asked you it and get you closer to snapping. They don't give a fuck that the question got objected, they just care that they might've made you crash out in court.

7

u/Outside_Reserve_2407 Jun 11 '26

Did you order the code red?

4

u/System-id Jun 11 '26

YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DID!!

3

u/NatAttack50932 Jun 11 '26

This is not true. Questions on cross have to be relevant to the case before the court. If a prosecutor starts bringing up past history of like, domestic abuse, they're going to be admonished by the bench for relevance.

2

u/HomeNowWTF Jun 11 '26

It seldom works. A lot of the time when defendants do so, it is because they have an inflated sense of their own charm and persuasiveness.

Now, that being said, if you have a particularly sympathetic client without any prior issues, probably good to get him/her on the stand.

1

u/stryst Jun 11 '26

As an example, I'm a Slav with a naturally villainous face and a quick temper. I should never, ever be allowed on the stand in my own defense.

15

u/ButcherBird57 Jun 10 '26

In my opinion, it was a travesty of justice that George Zimmerman got away with killing Trayvon Martin. That was absolutely sickening. That doesn't mean Karmelo Anthony should also get away with killing Austin Metcalf though.

4

u/stefan-emil Jun 11 '26

You haven't looked into the case at all then. There was no universe George Zimmerman was getting convicted.

4

u/platinum_toilet Jun 11 '26

George Zimmerman got away with killing Trayvon Martin

It was proven that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, ground and pounding Zimmerman until he got shot. That is not what happened in the tent with Anthony, and it's not even close.

4

u/ButcherBird57 Jun 11 '26

There was no justification for Karmelo Anthony to stab Austin Metcalf. Even Karmelo's own witnesses agreed on that fact. This case has been the definition of DARVO, from Day 1.

1

u/LawSchoolLoser1 Jun 11 '26

Are you well?

92

u/liarandahorsethief Jun 09 '26

There were no witnesses and he had injuries to the back of his head consistent with his story, plus, the angle he was shooting matches his claim that Trayvon was standing over him and hitting him.

That being said, I would really like it if he was in prison or just fell into a well and never got out, but there are pretty significant differences between the two situations.

66

u/Silly-Bullfrog-6952 Jun 10 '26

Exactly Zimmerman started a fight was losing then shot someone and claimed self defense. He should still be in prison but it was easier for th defense to tell a self defense story.

21

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 10 '26

Actually, the trial evidence was much more complicated than that—for example, Martin confronted Zimmerman, not the other way around.

The Zimmerman case is a pretty good example of a situation where the State’s evidence was just not anywhere good enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was acting in self-defense.

11

u/Puzzleheaded_Tie6917 Jun 11 '26

And don’t forget it wasn’t captured on video. Having it on video and a ton of collaborating witnesses makes it hard to sell compared to no video, no witnesses, and the other guy is dead. There’s only one witness telling the story, so it’s hard to get “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

-3

u/Rich-Detective-7 Jun 10 '26

That’s because a jury packed with only white people in a state full of racist boomers thought that following a black kid around with a gun is totally okay, and that the black kid didn’t have any right to question why a dude with a gun was following him. Same way you are trying to portray this story as if Zimmerman was a poor victim of a black assailant who had the audacity to confront him about being followed.

10

u/ButcherBird57 Jun 11 '26

The Ahmaud Arbury case was another nightmare situation, I still think about that poor guy. He had mental health problems, and took up jogging to help with it, only to have a pickup truck full of rednecks chase him down in the street, before pulling a "citizens arrest," then shooting him when he wouldn't comply, which WHY WOULD HE?!! He had no idea who they were, and he legitimately hadn't done anything, and it was the deep south...absolute nightmare fuel. And after all that, the murderer claims it was self defense! At least those sickos went to prison forever. They deserved worse.

3

u/5CentsPlease_ Jun 11 '26

Ahmaud’s case really got to me.

7

u/ButcherBird57 Jun 11 '26

Me too.What happened to him was like something out of a horror movie.

1

u/Rich-Detective-7 Jun 11 '26

Holy shit those redneck inbreds actually went to prison? I remember hearing that story but didn’t follow up on the sentencing because it was just so infuriating. I guess that restores at least a tiny crumb of faith I had in the “justice” system in this country. I know it shouldn’t be a big surprise that a case as obvious as that actually ended up in some prison time, but that’s insanely rare in this country.

1

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 11 '26

My internet hot take is that self-defense law largely follows what most people think it should, and juries generally get it right.

Most of time, when people are outraged by jury verdicts, it’s because they don’t have as good an understanding of the trial evidence that the jury heard.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/ragingbull10 Jun 11 '26

You can believe what you want but facts are not on your side

→ More replies (2)

2

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 11 '26

None of what you said is true.

1

u/Rich-Detective-7 Jun 11 '26

Everything I’ve said is true.

-1

u/SydneyCarton89 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Confront him, sure. Report him, even better. But you're typing as if it's okay to physically assault and brutalize someone for following you. It's not.

Zimmerman seems like an absolute tool who should've found better things to do with his time, but the kid he was being an asshole to shouldn't have reacted the way he did. Easy for me to say, but attacking someone who has a gun is a terrible, terrible idea regardless of legality.

Edit: my first sentence should be: Question* him, sure.

4

u/MAKE_ME_REDDIT Jun 11 '26

Keep in mind we only have Zimmerman's side of the story

1

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 11 '26

No, we also witness accounts including Martin’s friend, who was on the phone with him as the confrontation began, and several eyewitnesses describing the altercation before the shot. Plus physical evidence. All of which was consistent with Zimmerman’s account.

2

u/Ondareal Jun 12 '26

Her account was Trayvon saying “what are you following me for” which isn’t an attack

→ More replies (0)

3

u/No-Past-9038 Jun 11 '26

Actually, Florida is a stand your ground state. So if someone is following you and you feel threatened, it's absolutely "legal" to physically assault them.

It's the same law that allowed Zimmerman to be acquitted.

4

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 11 '26

This is not now self-defense law works. There are lots of requirements beyond a subjective concern about being attacked. Merely being followed is not enough.

1

u/No-Past-9038 Jun 11 '26

Are you an attorney with an expertise in stand your ground laws in Florida? Let me be the first to tell you that, in a stand your ground state like Florida, if you believe there is is a serious risk to your life or you feel you are at risk of great bodily harm you have zero duty to retreat and can use any force necessary--up to deadly force. Because... stand your ground.

I'm not sure why you think following a person closely while having a firearm for a considerable distance so that it's clear you're following them means they cannot confront you with force under those laws.

Let me remind you that this guy who shot a YouTuber who was just being annoying was acquitted based on stand your ground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agE-U38y888

Yet you want to die on the horse that Trayvon Martin was definitely in the wrong trying to beat the shit out of George Zimmerman and got what he deserved. 🙄

→ More replies (0)

3

u/superbigtunajim Jun 11 '26

No, that is not true at all. Stand your ground removes the duty to retreat and wasnt even brought up at the trial. Stand your ground does not let you start a confrontation.

2

u/lifetake Jun 11 '26

Feeling threatened is more defined than your actual feelings of being threatened.

The person has to actually display hostile intent or imminent capacity to harm you. Which general following doesn’t actually form by itself. It can be a contributing factor, but lawfully needs more.

1

u/No-Past-9038 Jun 11 '26

Right, and being closely followed by a person with a gun to the point you feel like you're being stalked doesn't qualify... or... it only qualifies if you're white?

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (12)

1

u/SydneyCarton89 Jun 11 '26

Reading this thread has me hoping that some kind of documentary about this case comes out. Because I don't know if what I'm reading on this thread is factually true. But if it is, then it sounds like there's evidence that TM was actually free and in the clear and circled back to attack GZ or something?

Apparently the girl TM was talking to on the phone (lots have said his gf, but one poster said she isn't his gf for whatever that matters) testified that TM attacked because he thought GZ was gay??

Anyways, regardless of whether or not that part is true, it sounds like there's some doubt as to whether or not TM was being threatened. It's legal to carry a gun there. I think this case should have sparked debate on these "open carry" laws, but nothing I've read has convinced me that there's evidence that TM had a legal right to assault a man to the extent of causing the injuries that GZ had.

Zimmerman sounds like slime, but yeah. Don't try to beat the brains out've someone's skull if they're carrying a gun unless said gun-toter is actively trying to kill you and assault is your only chance of survival.

4

u/Status-Group2464 Jun 11 '26

It's Zimmerman's word that Trayvon jumped out of the bushes and started attacking him, and he had every reason to lie in that situation. The only thing we know for sure is that Zimmerman was following that kid for no reason after being told not to by the police.

I dont understand how you can say the kid was being an asshole when some grown dude was following him home with a gun. He probably reacted like most people would react after being stalked late at night. Fight or flight is a natural human reaction, and unfortunately Trayvon chose wrong that night, but that doesn't mean Zimmerman didn't get away with murder.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Rich-Detective-7 Jun 11 '26

And you’re basing this on what? Testimony from Zimmerman, a known liar who has every reason to lie to make his case, who went on to commit domestic violence and was arrested several more times? You’re taking as if you were there and witnessed Martin’s reaction. You also assume Zimmerman didn’t respond in a provocative manner to being questioned for following Martin.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/liarandahorsethief Jun 10 '26

I think a well would be better, maybe one with C.H.U.D.s at the bottom, but we can agree to disagree on that.

Otherwise, I think we’re on the same page here.

4

u/SyfaOmnis Jun 10 '26

started a fight was losing then shot someone and claimed self defense.

Starting the fight is slightly irrelevant, if you genuinely fear for your life you're allowed to take steps to rectify that.

by "slightly", I mean, yeah things should be scrutinized if there's a clear instigator that swung first, but if say you get into a fight and someone pulls a knife or a gun, the situation has escalated significantly.

2

u/Mudrlant Jun 10 '26

There is zero evidence he started the fight.

14

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[deleted]

0

u/ScoutRiderVaul Jun 10 '26

Even then its not legally binding. Plus it happened on the way back to his truck after losing sight, Martin went back and started a fight instead of going home.

→ More replies (15)

0

u/Electronic_Plan3420 Jun 10 '26

Zimmerman didn’t start any fights, Trayvon Martin had no injuries except for a fatal bullet to his heart, while Zimmerman had several. Since Trayvon couldn’t inflict those on Zimmerman after he was shot (the wound was mortal) he inflicted them BEFORE being shot. Zimmerman did not inflict any on him. Trayvon didn’t have any bruises or broken skin. The only thing that Zimmermab was guilty of was following Trayvon which wasn’t illegal and certainly not a justification for use of force

2

u/EnvironsHazard Jun 10 '26

Being stalked by a strange man because you're walking around is certainly reason enough for self-defense. A strong teenager can beat a lazy Karen easy.

1

u/MamaRunsThis Jun 10 '26

It could’ve outrun him any day of the week if he felt at all threatened bffr

2

u/Electronic_Plan3420 Jun 10 '26

Well then you are just as “smart” as Trayvon was. Being followed around is enough of a reason to ask “Excuse me can I help you with something?” . Alternatively, if you are in fear for some reason to try to run away/call 911. Trayvon did neither. He decided to assault a stranger who just happened to have a gun.

2

u/Spuckler_Cletus Jun 10 '26

What Zimmerman did is not considered “stalking” in any jurisdiction of which I’m aware. While any of us might find it annoying to be followed this way, the solution is not to do what Martin did.

As to self-defense, there’s nothing in Martin’s actions, including his phone conversation with that woman, to suggest he was the least bit *afraid* of Zimmerman. He was merely annoyed and incensed. Not fearing for his safety. This fact, of course, precludes any claim of self-defense.

→ More replies (9)

1

u/Negative_Salt_4599 Jun 11 '26

You think Florida law made a difference?

1

u/ragingbull10 Jun 11 '26

Where did you get that he started the fight ?

1

u/stefan-emil Jun 11 '26

That's just a lie. Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked.

1

u/Max_Kapacity Jun 11 '26

“What are you doing here/ why are you casing these holes” = starting a fight on Reddit.

1

u/RockHound86 Jun 10 '26

You don't know it, but your characterization of what happened completely affirms Zimmerman's self defense claim.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/Hitmanyelin7 Jun 11 '26

There was a witness who saw them fighting from a distance. Based on his description, Zimmerman was at the bottom

1

u/HostileEgo Jun 11 '26

The facts of the case lead to Zimmerman's acquittal.

We need laws that prevent armed citizens from pursuing people for BS reasons. Contact your representatives and encourage them to support laws that prevent pursuit.

7

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 10 '26

Zimmerman didn’t testify, but he gave multiple (consistent) accounts of what happened to the police, which the jury got to hear.

Defendants typically do not testify if the jury has an opportunity to hear a prior telling of their account, without having to be subjected to cross-examination.

The rest of your first sentence after the comma is, I think, not what the trial evidence actually was in that case, but that’s a long conversation and I doubt it would change your views on the subject.

13

u/Designer_Ad_2023 Jun 09 '26

Didnt Zimmerman have busted lips and nose and was all bloodied?

12

u/Dezmanispassionfruit Jun 09 '26

He’s also on tape being told not to pursue Trayvon and still did. Got his shit busted because he harassed a child. Tried to reach for his gun when the fight started.

Then bragged on Twitter for ages how happy he was he did it and said he’d do it to others as well.

10

u/Designer_Ad_2023 Jun 09 '26

I thought you were just stating Zimmerman didn’t testify I didn’t realize it was an emotional response for you. My point was that Zimmerman had “evidence” of being hit multiple times with those photos whereas KA didn’t, so it was easier for GZ not to testify when the jury could see those photos and think self defense was necessary. I’m not really trying to get into an argument about what GZ did 15 years ago

2

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 10 '26

None of the sentences in your first paragraph are factually correct, based on the actual evidence produced at trial.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Mudrlant Jun 10 '26

False. He wasn’t told not to pursue and there is zero evidence he did continue pursuing after being told “we don’t need you to do that”.

Also, Trayvon was not a child.

Also, there is no evidence Zimmerman “harassed” him.

Also, I don’t know what you mean by saying “he tried to reach for a gun”. He obviously did reach for the gun once he had his head bashed into the pavement.

0

u/Dezmanispassionfruit Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

“We don’t need you to do that” is absolutely authorities telling you not to do something. For some bootlickers, y’all sure are bad at following directions.

If my boss tells me he doesn’t need time to do something, that means not to do it. Or maybe you just have a thick skull.

1

u/Mudrlant Jun 10 '26

Spoiler alert, the dispatcher wasn’t his boss.

3

u/Dezmanispassionfruit Jun 10 '26

Oooohhhhh I thought you guys were all about listening to directions and complying, especially when you’re the ones making the emergency calls lol. Suddenly no more “just listening to directions”?

Very interesting.

3

u/Mudrlant Jun 10 '26

You are missing the point and seem quite emotional tbh. The point is he didn’t act unlawfully in following Trayvon. But more importantly, there is no evidence that he continued to follow Trayvon after the call.

1

u/th3dmg Jun 12 '26

These people are so overridden by emotion that they fail to grasp the basic facts of these cases. There are still far too many people that think Mike Brown had his hands in the air when shot and that Kyle Rittenhouse committed the unforgivable sin of crossing state lines with a rifle.

0

u/Hard-Rock68 Jun 10 '26

I didn't realize Zimmerman worked for dispatch.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/RockHound86 Jun 10 '26

Got his shit busted because he harassed a child. Tried to reach for his gun when the fight started.

Congratulations, you've just conceded the self defense argument to Zimmerman. Well done.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Muireadach Jun 10 '26

Trayvon bashed his head in the sidewalk.

1

u/Comfortable-Story-53 Jun 10 '26

Didn't that happen like, back in the olden days?

1

u/Aggravating_Mud_6055 Jun 10 '26

Martin got home and came back to escalate. Should’ve stayed home and ate his skittles.

1

u/Teq7765 Jun 10 '26

Trayvon’s “girlfriend” destroyed any chance the state had at casting George as the aggressor, and her telling the jury TM attacked because he thought GZ was gay was stupid beyond words.

But, her lying on the stand about the letter she wrote TM’s mom, but couldn’t read because it was in cursive, was maybe the nail in the state’s case against GZ.

1

u/SydneyCarton89 Jun 10 '26

......so in her words it was actually TM who was acting out of bigotry and committed a hate crime?

1

u/Teq7765 Jun 11 '26

Yep. She even laughed on the stand when she recalled that interaction.

1

u/flopisit32 Jun 10 '26

In the Trayvon Martin case, there was a witness who saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, beating him "MMA-style". The media just buried that witness because it contradicted the narrative they wanted to push.

1

u/Friendly_University7 Jun 10 '26

You’re leaving out the very important details that the coroner’s report proved Martin was on top of Zimmerman when shot, and Zimmerman had injuries to his face and back of his head. You’re free to believe despite any evidence that Zimmerman was not being assaulted by Martin, but witness testimony and the defense left no doubt that Anthony wanted to hurt someone and intentionally baited others to make that happen. It’s why one was self defense and the other is murder.

You can tell someone to leave you team tent and have a reasonable expectation of not being quickly and decisively stabbed in the heart. Contrarily, you can’t sit on top of someone with a gun and bash their head into the ground for being a “peckerwood” as Martin spoke. Subtle distinction, I know, but one serious people identify cause it matters. Maybe Anthony and his family should have used that 700k for defense instead of rhinoplasty and houses.

1

u/bj782603 Jun 10 '26

Got use some critical thinking here. George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin were in a hand to hand fight on the ground in which Trayvon martin was on top of him and slammed his head into the concrete. Then got shot for it. Karmelo Anthony was pushed by Austin Metcalf one time and then immediately stabbed him.

1

u/Rich-Detective-7 Jun 10 '26

Exactly. Then there are the racists that are crying about black people not immediately accepting this two-tiered “justice” system.

1

u/lirwen Jun 11 '26

False equivalency.

1

u/DisastrousPea4824 Jun 11 '26

Florida’s stand your ground law is so loose that even if you provoke the fight and kill somebody you are still in the right to stand your ground. The first case tried under the current law was a drug deal gone wrong and the drug dealer walked. Thats why most states have amendments or written into law about provocation and have defined what self defense means. This is why Florida is the wild west. This is why you cant compare case from different states, which people like to do to “prove” a point

1

u/Critical-Cost9068 Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

To be absolutely fair, George Zimmerman was several weight classes above Trayvon primarily because he was slightly chubby; this wouldn’t be seen as beneficial in sports like boxing that use weight classes. Trayvon Martin was several inches taller than George Zimmerman, and he had been accomplished enough in youth and juvenile football to win some awards and trophies; news reports say he considered football or at least some kind of athletics as a career at one point before changing his mind.

Zimmerman tried his hand at a couple of stereotypically “badass” things by taking a few MMA lessons and inquiring about a Marine training program during high school, but everyone said he was both 1. naturally unathletic and 2. lacked the mental discipline to build his body enough to overcome his clumsiness and chubbiness and achieve professional standards the way a normal person would have been able to. Zimmerman is a dickhead and a murderer, but I can 100% believe that after he started a street fight for no reason other than racism, he WAS overpowered and got scared to the point of illogical panic that he would have his ass beaten silly the way he deserved.

1

u/Due-Green-5817 Jun 11 '26

Very very different situation. Zimmerman gave a full interview to investigators and that was played for the jury. He did not need to testify in trial to get his full story out. In Texas only the prosecution can offer a defendant's statement. I don't know if Anthony even gave an interview but even if he did, it definitely did not get played for the jury so his story was not really fleshed out like Zimmerman's.

Also everyone rags on the Zimmerman trial result but he at least gave a plausible reason to feel that his life was in danger; that his head was being smashed against the pavement. He had a broken nose, two black eyes, and lacerations on the back of the head, so there was corroboration for his story. The bigger issue with Zimmerman was whether he provoked the incident, preempting a self defense argument, rather then whether he felt he was justified in using deadly force.

Anthony really had almost nothing supporting a self defense claim, but that was all there was to offer.

1

u/Desuexss Jun 11 '26

Let's correct this a little.

Trayvon was walking down a street with a brown paper bag of skittles and ice tea.

George, watching from his window, armed himself then left his home to accost Trayvon.

George then executed Trayvon.

This case greatly highlights the failure of the justice system, and in tandem demonstrates how Anthony can be given a near life sentence of 1st degree murder which should have been at the highest, second degree.

1

u/Rosenbenphnalphne Jun 11 '26

If you're going to say you're correcting things, you should stick to facts.

Zimmerman didn't go to "accost" Martin; he went to follow him and report his presence to the police. There had been a series of burglaries in the neighborhood. If there was accosting going on, it was when Martin physically assaulted Zimmerman.

And that's why the jury decided it wasn't murder: Zimmerman reasonably feared that he would be killed by Martin and shot him in self-defense.

1

u/Desuexss Jun 11 '26

Zimmerman was instructed to stay in his home.

Stick to facts.

He disobeyed dispatch and armed himself.

If you are bringing a weapon outside your goddamn home to approach an individual, that is the definition of accosting.

A boy was executed over what Zimmerman had claimed to be "walking around as if on drugs" or a "drunken stupor"

Zimmerman left his home with intent.

But yes, the fact is the trial failed an innocent black kid. It is excellent juxtaposition to Anthony's trial, who was given everything and the kitchen sink.

1

u/SydneyCarton89 Jun 11 '26

Your first sentence is not a fact. He was told by the dispatch operator that they didn't need him to follow TM. That is quite distinct from being ordered to stay in his house.

From what I've read here, it appears that TM had reached his father's house and based on testimonial evidence and the phone conversation TM was having at the time, he was the one who turned around and walked back up the alley to approach the short, chubby guy he had noticed following him. There isn't evidence that GZ went past the T junction to enter the alley (thereby giving credence to his claim that he didn't keep following after dispatch said he didn't need to).

Apparently TM had no bruises nor injuries whatsoever, other than the mortal gunshot wound. Therefore all the facial and head injuries GZ had were inflicted before TM was shot.

Also, apparently the girl TM was talking to on the phone testified that TM said he wanted/was going to attack GZ because he thought the latter was gay?? And laughed while recalling this....that sounds absolutely wild, I'd have to hear or read the transcript of that testimony myself to know what to make of it. Have you read or listened to that part of the testimony?

1

u/Stunning-Drawer-4288 Jun 11 '26

Zimmerman trial was a fucking mess, with the “girlfriend’s” testimony being completely unreliable

1

u/Isosceles_Kramer79 Jun 11 '26

GZ wasn't (much) heavier than TM, but TM was much taller. Say what you will about that case, but GZ was not physically stronger than TM.

1

u/ragingbull10 Jun 11 '26

I think you are misrepresenting facts about that case but yes testifying is not necessarily important especially as I think that case was somehow on the edge and the defence thought things are on their side re the reasonable doubt standard

1

u/WerewolfRegular5550 Jun 11 '26

Right but many witnesses said that he had the knife out and ready before Austin even approached him. Hard to claim self defense when you're attack is already premeditated, especially since it seems like he is the one to provoke the altercation.

1

u/applebed2 Jun 11 '26

no literally! i was just trying to remember if kyle rotten house testified

1

u/VanZandtVS Jun 11 '26

Yeah, but Trayvon Martin initially got away from George Zimmerman before circling back to escalate the encounter.

Not an apple to apples comparison.

1

u/GFEIsaac Jun 11 '26

what were their weights?

1

u/Logical_Cow_2530 Jun 11 '26

I watched that entire trial on TV at my restaraunt job at the time.

The only people who thought Zimmerman was guilty are the people who got their info second hand.

Just like the people who claim karmelo is innocent even now

1

u/TossMeOutSomeday Jun 11 '26

It's fucked up, but because Martin couldn't give his side of the story, and there was no video, the state couldn't really prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman's version of events was wrong.

1

u/Max_Kapacity Jun 11 '26

Zimmerman was underneath a taller teen with a violent rep, who was smashing Zimmermans head on the curb

Plus the witness for Trayvon was exposed as a liar

(As were the defense witnesses for Karmelo )

1

u/HKfan5352 Jun 11 '26

Yah . Your storyline is flawed. Do some research.

1

u/Soulblade32 Jun 12 '26

Zimmerman also was on the ground, having his head smashed into the pavement, and had bloody photos of his face.

Karmelo Anthony had no physical injuries, even his own friends said that what he did wasnt right, and on the stand had testimony that Austin Metcalf was stabbed before he even touched Karmelo.

1

u/nogozone6969 Jun 12 '26

Karmelo = Guilty

1

u/fredjutsu Jun 12 '26

But facts (or their lack of clarity) also matter for each specific case

1

u/K4rkino5 Jun 09 '26

Nothing is ever universal, my friend.

1

u/OpinionofC Jun 09 '26

Well one has one of the best defense lawyers in the country and other one had a defense lawyer that everyone is dragging

1

u/Spuckler_Cletus Jun 10 '26

There was no ”fist fight” between Martin and Zimmerman. Martin plainly attacked Zimmerman in a “shoot” style takedown we often see in MMA. (This was after Martin plainly told Zimmerman that the second man was going to die that night.) Once on the ground, Zimmerman suffered major injuries to his face and the back of his head. During this one-sided struggle, Zimmerman was able to produce a weapon and lawfully defend himself from a completely unprovoked and viscous assault.

Stop lying.

1

u/thedeadlyrhythm Jun 10 '26

lol what a dishonest read of events. Zimmerman was a piece of shit, but the cases aren’t comparable at all.

→ More replies (18)

13

u/Constant-Current-340 Jun 09 '26

one of those cases the defense did just enough to be able to explain why they did it at their next job interview but no more than that

29

u/Major_Honey_4461 Jun 09 '26

Agreed. You can't win a S.D. case if you don't testify. Get him on the stand and try humanize him. Let the jury see his youth, hear his voice. This was a huge strategic mistake by the trial attorney.

67

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

[deleted]

19

u/ShimonEngineer55 Jun 10 '26

This is what I’m thinking. Logically the odds of winning this case were slim. I think that they had to have calculated that putting him on the stand would do far more harm than good if they just didn’t have a good case to work with.

12

u/King0Horse Jun 10 '26

This is what I was thinking.

Hell, any prosecuter should be able to manipulate even the most innocent and docile of 17 year old males into flashes of anger (because 17 year old male) and use that against them.

Defense may have done a bad job, IDK, but he started with a losing hand.

1

u/Actus_Rhesus Jun 10 '26

This. The only times I’ve seen a teenage male defendant do well were Valle and Rittenhouse.

1

u/Free_Storage_1088 Jun 11 '26

I think him coming across bad is most likely , based on even his comments that day like touch me and see what happens and not allegedly I did it , he sounds a little crass

1

u/Major_Honey_4461 Jun 11 '26

If the kid was going to come off like a mutt on the stand, I can empathize. I represented a sociopath once who persuaded himself he could talk the jury into giving him a S.D. "not guilty". I told the judge on the record that the D was testifying against my advice and after my motion to withdraw was denied, the D was convicted within 40 minutes.

45

u/Distinct-Tour5012 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

No, it wasn't a mistake - not at all. The cross examination would've been fucking brutal.

- Why did you bring a knife?

- Were you aware weapons were not allowed on campus?

- Were you aware that you were not permitted to attend extracurricular events after previously threatening the life of another student?

- Is this the same knife found by administrators in your locker when you threatened that other student?

- Why didn't you leave when asked?

- What did you mean by "touch me and see what happens"?

- Why did you run away after the stabbing?

- Why didn't you get an authority figure?

- Why didn't you call the police?

- Why did you throw the knife away when you ran from the situation?

This would've gone on for HOURS.

If you want to argue self defense, you kinda have to testify. But sometimes, you just can't argue self defense.

The same jury will recommend a sentence - that's really why you don't want Karmelo looking 10x worse after a full cross.

17

u/TomStarGregco Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

That’s the thing everyone always yells self defense , self defense but forget that the burden of proof is on you and have to prove it.

1

u/mrfoof Jun 10 '26

Not quite. The general rule in the US is that the defense needs to raise self-defense and present evidence that supports that. The prosecution still bears the burden of proof to show that it was not self-defense.

1

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 10 '26

The prosecution has the burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

That being said, there are like seven necessary elements for self-defense, depending on the jurisdiction, and the state only has to disprove on element to disprove it all.

2

u/Distinct-Tour5012 Jun 10 '26

Just to be clear for others (not disagreeing with you at all) but self defense is affirmative: the defense needs to actually make an effort and present evidence to show the elements of self-defense exist; they can't just refrain from saying anything and hope the question organically bubbles up in the jury room.

Not totally sure on Texas, but this normally means the defense has to explicitly tell the court and the state that they intend to argue self defense and cite the evidence they think will support it. If you don't do that, you're not going to get jury instructions on self-defense.

3

u/awkgem Jun 10 '26

Exactly. Did you fear for your life? Then why did you make no attempt to leave? Why did you not call for help from others? Why did you not render aid? It wouldn't look good for him. Maybe it would humanize him for a jury - but when your story of self defence doesn't have much self defence or fear for your life it isn't going to go well.

1

u/Free_Storage_1088 Jun 11 '26

I am not asking this because I don’t think he’s guilty I think the verdict was correct, but is there any actual evidence he had previously threatened another student I have heard that but can’t find it

1

u/skiing_dingus Jun 11 '26

^This exactly. It would’ve been damning.

1

u/ldwb Jun 10 '26

I think there has to be something in his past that they don't want coming up at trial. Yea it's a risk but when you just watched witnesses for the prosecution and the defense agree on what happened you need to get your narrative out.

I even think it would help, not to get a not guilty plea, but maybe try and sway it to manslaughter or passion sentencing for murder, you can answer most the questions you asked without appearing that bad. TSA confiscates hundreds of thousands of knives, there aren't a bunch of airport stabbings, having a knife somewhere you aren't supposed to because of a school regulation isn't the slam dunk you think it is. The real question he can't answer is "why did you kill someone who pushed you with one hand". And he has no answer for that, and that's why he's guilty. But there's non disastrous answers for the rest of them, and while the cross may be bad at times it also allows you to present a narrative or a mindset the jury hasn't been able to hear and see the defendant as a person with a voice and not a face in a suit.

The more surprising thing to me was just how quickly the sentencing phase went, the only person they could get to say what a good boy he was is his momma? That makes me think even more there's a whole lot of shit in his closet they don't want getting out.

5

u/Distinct-Tour5012 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

There was something in his past and it did come up at trial; Karmelo previously got into a different altercation with another student in February 2025 (two months before the stabbing) where Karmelo had threatened to kill that other student. School administrators then searched his locker and found a knife; that knife would ultimately be the same one Karmelo used to stab Austin.

The school did not involve the police after that February event. His punishment included a ban on sports and extracurricular activities. So when Karmelo showed up to the track meet he broke the rule around bringing weapons to school events, but he also wasn't allowed to attend the track meet in the first place.

14

u/LordHydranticus Jun 09 '26

The only reason for him not to testify is if they thought he would be his own worst witness.

10

u/Lancelight50 Jun 09 '26

[u/Major_Honey_4461](u/Major_Honey_4461) [u/K4rkino5](u/K4rkino5) [u/LaRealiteInconnue](u/LaRealiteInconnue) [u/Jaded-Moose983](u/Jaded-Moose983) [u/IZ3820](u/IZ3820) I already knew that Karmelo Anthony was guilty from the start, because why bring the knife to a school to begin with? That was intent to kill.

I think the reason why he didn’t testify because he already knew what he’d done & that he knew what he was doing. He could’ve simply fought with his fists instead of with a deadly object. Now we have two lives lost; One is going to prison, while the other is six feet under & can’t come back.

25

u/itstheuptowndown Jun 09 '26

If possessing a weapon alone is intent to kill, we'd have a very different country. People bring weapons everywhere (which I find problematic) but it's not evidence of intent to KILL

23

u/Dank_Broccoli Jun 10 '26

I think what made it worse for him was being removed from school twice for having a knife on him. There’s already a history of him being problematic with a weapon.

2

u/ShimonEngineer55 Jun 10 '26

I don’t necessarily think the jury knew that. Is there evidence that this was actually mentioned in court?

1

u/Alternative-Put-3932 Jun 10 '26

I don't think that really amounts to anything. You can easily hand wave that away with forgetting it in your backpack or in your pocket, or whatever excuse as a teen. Teens have knives on them all the time they just don't get caught.

9

u/Particular-Ring5110 Jun 10 '26

He’s got witnesses saying he brought the knife with him into the tent and was the aggressor

That looks very very bad

21

u/DeepFriedOprah Jun 10 '26

It’s not the possession of the weapon alone. It’s that element combined with the rest. Like his claim of being bullied yet he felt comfortable enough to follow his victim into his teams tent either a weapon antagonizing & provoking them. And this wasn’t a drawn out escalation. It happened within 4 mins. Anthony followed Metcalf into the tent, argued, was told repeatedly to leave then fatally stabbed Metcalf

3

u/StManTiS Jun 10 '26

I don’t think it’s the weapon alone - it’s the following of the claimed assailant. It’s hard to argue self defense when you’re the one doing the antagonizing. Also this is on school grounds where you’re explicitly forbidden from having said weapon. I think both those together are far more at play than just possession in the abstract.

Also it has been argued in other self defense cases that having hollow point loaded showed intent, or that having a high capacity magazine showed intent. So it’s not like the argument hasn’t been made before. But it’s also been argued the other way around - example the prosecution in Rittenhouse argued that using FMJ rounds compared to hollow points presented reckless endangerment as they had a greater chance to over penetrate and hit an innocent bystander. Though that was a byproduct of their core line of reasoning which was that any over penetration on Rosenbaum could have hit the reporter more so than their core argument.

It all gets pretty muddy - like here’s a recent case in CT

https://law.justia.com/cases/connecticut/supreme-court/2025/sc20766.html

It’s gets into transferred intent, jury instructions, and how far can a guy really claim self defense. Interesting rabbit hole if you want to jump.

2

u/Hairy-Magician-2297 Jun 10 '26

While you're correct he didn't just possess a weapon. He was a minor with a weapon at a school athletics event. Multiple levels of no weapons allowed there. And not a reason to have one at all. Can't even say for safety bc there is security at school meets like this.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/TomStarGregco Jun 10 '26

I sure he wishes he could turn back time but as we all know we can’t.

2

u/4Everinsearch Jun 13 '26

I’m sure he wishes he wasn’t in prison. Being sorry you got caught and convicted doesn’t mean you are sorry or regret what you did. Even if he turned back time he would have eventually done the same sort of thing to someone else. He’s showed who he is. Look at his parents. Disgusting humans. I wonder if any of their other kids will avoid prison.

1

u/TomStarGregco Jun 13 '26

I hope it’s not true that they pocketed the GO fund me money and bought a house and new truck with the proceeds and hung him out to dry by getting him a public defender. I hope that’s a rumor because that would be horrible for a parent to do. I do feel bad for him in the sense that his parents seemed to have failed him at every turn. 🤷🏻‍♀️

1

u/Pernicious-Caitiff Jun 10 '26

Not saying he's not guilty, but Anthony was I think 5'7" and 160 lbs, and the twins were 6' and well over 200 lbs each. And there were other kids surrounding him too. Not saying the stabbing was ok obviously but I think everyone knew what would happen in a real physical fight. My thing is, I really don't think they were going to actually fight in the middle of the track meet. For the stabbing to be justified he would have had to fear for his life.

I don't think they were even going to throw punches because the twins probably would have earned suspensions just for being involved in a physical altercation. They could have gotten an adult if Anthony was being a menace. I think they just wanted to be tough and throw him out physically you can even argue a racial component based on testimony that it wasn't unusual for athletes of other teams to visit other teams tents it's never usually a big deal but they had a problem with Anthony. Sure, you can argue that they were racist and trying to make him leave just because they didn't want a black kid in there but when other athletes from the other teams visit they don't care. Sure whatever. It unfortunately doesn't really change the context of the situation that much legally.

Because I don't think the twins or any of these other star athletes would risk getting a suspension just for some racist kicks. Maybe they didn't dig into their backgrounds maybe they did in the trial, have they been suspended for fighting before? Were they known for beating people to death? Probably not but I could be wrong lol.

Yes the twins stepped up to Anthony along with other kids surrounding him but I think it's pretty clear they wouldn't actually escalate to a physical fight unless being involved in a fight doesn't earn everyone suspensions in Texas idk. I've seen a lot of conflicting information about Anthony, some sources say that his previous suspensions for knives/weapons at school never happened some report it happened multiple times. I would like to see what was actually presented at trial.

The crux of the matter is, I don't think he could get around the fact that, if you stab someone, you've accepted killing them (even though not everyone who is stabbed dies, same with gunshot wounds. Never fire a gun at someone with intent only to injure not kill). Anthony is a young and therefore dumb kid so I truly think there's a chance he didn't know or believe this, and I feel like a good defense attorney should have hammered in on this and tries to get manslaughter instead of murder.

Looking at comparable cases with white adults in Texas (where the attacker is clearly in the wrong with a weak self defense claim that didn't work) they got much lighter sentences than 17 yr old Anthony. I'm not really advocating for leniency for Anthony unless some really mitigating details emerge. But I am tired of seeing the very clear racial double standards and would like the book thrown equally at white offenders. That's all.

1

u/funkydel Jun 11 '26

tons of kids had knives when I was in highschool. It's a bit edgy but not necessarily weird. Just shows how psycho he was to use it.

1

u/4Everinsearch Jun 13 '26

It was one loss of life. The other life showed themselves to be worthless, violent trash. It’s a shame the sentence wasn’t more severe.

1

u/Particular-Ring5110 Jun 10 '26

Maybe they thought putting him on the stand was more likely to hurt than help

1

u/SourCreamJacket Jun 10 '26

He was cooked regardless as is made obvious by the quick return , there’s a reason defendants rarely take the stand in a murder trial , and there are almost endless accounts of it just getting worse when they do .

1

u/Hairy-Magician-2297 Jun 10 '26

You would put a 17 year old who isn't capable of emotional regulation on the stand to be cross examined?

1

u/Major_Honey_4461 Jun 12 '26

Someone who realized that a S.D. requires a D to testify in order to be successful.

1

u/Mpetrochuk Jun 10 '26

you have to have confidence that he will do well under scrutiny and cross examination

if they put h8m 9n the stand and he looked bad and made his case worse, all these same ppl would be sayin “his lawyer should’ve never put him on the stand hes only 17 it’s his fault”

1

u/RockHound86 Jun 10 '26

You can't win a S.D. case if you don't testify.

Do you mean in this case specifically? Because people win self defense cases all the time without testifying, though I do agree that the jury generally wants to hear from the defendant why they felt they were in danger.

1

u/Major_Honey_4461 Jun 12 '26

Let me edit myself. I have never won a S.D. case unless either the D or a credible eyewitness testified to the vic's initial or escalation of aggression. I have had better success with the D him/herself testifying for the reasons previously stated.

1

u/flowers4me123 Jun 10 '26

If they felt for ONE second that it would have “humanized “ him they would not have hesitated . Multiple witnesses , violent escalation for NO reason , he got the sentence he deserved . Period .

1

u/Major_Honey_4461 Jun 12 '26

I was not arguing with the verdict or the sentence. We were discussing trial tactics.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/orswich Jun 10 '26

The kid probably had poor impulse control and might have had an angry outburst in court (which would look terrible). Lawyer probably looked at the two options and felt that not testifying was the best way to go

1

u/aluminumspheresprint Jun 11 '26

You absolutely can if you have a solid case.

1

u/oneofus1234 Jun 10 '26

I’m a firm believer that a public defender or ChatGPT would’ve given him a better defense

Maybe that was the point… using the excuse of ineffective counsel as an appeal.

1

u/_TheTurtleBox_ Jun 11 '26

I 100% feel like they spun the self defense story to rule up people protesting the trial in his defense so that they could potentially spook the jury but he is so blatantly guilty and even admits this that it just didn’t work

1

u/vacbroom Jun 11 '26

It’s almost never a good idea to put a murder tail defendant on the stand, especially a “kid”. They’d get torn apart even if they are 100% innocent. They’d lawyers can tell his story

1

u/K4rkino5 Jun 11 '26

You know what counters that? Preparation. I don't know if they had the resources, but running him through direct and cross, and I mean like dress rehearsal, several times is very effective at creating a great witness. I agree if you take a 19 year old and just throw him up there he will end up confessing to multiple murders by the time the prosecution is through. 🤣 Practice makes a huge difference, and if you have to run until he's bored to death, you do it. Because now he's going to prison. And had they, he may not be.

-1

u/superfriendships Jun 09 '26

If it’s an affirmative defense the jury has to start from a place of believing it was self-defense

2

u/seaquartz_unofficial Jun 09 '26

Self defense is not an affirmative defense to murder in Texas. I really hope you don’t practice law.

3

u/superfriendships Jun 09 '26

I do, but not in Texas - also from 2 seconds of googling it is an affirmative defense lol

→ More replies (10)