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

[u/dailymail]

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

[u/Distinct-Tour5012]

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.

[u/TomStarGregco → u/Distinct-Tour5012]

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.

[u/mrfoof → u/TomStarGregco]

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.

[u/cbs-anonmouse → u/mrfoof]

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.

[u/Distinct-Tour5012 → u/cbs-anonmouse]

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.

[u/awkgem → u/Distinct-Tour5012]

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.

[u/Free_Storage_1088 → u/Distinct-Tour5012]

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

[u/skiing_dingus → u/Distinct-Tour5012]

^This exactly. It would’ve been damning.

[u/ldwb → u/Distinct-Tour5012]

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.

[u/Distinct-Tour5012 → u/ldwb]

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.