The defense team of Karmelo Anthony has filed a pair of post-conviction motions in an attempt to overturn his conviction for murdering 17-year-old Austin Metcalf. The motions accuse the judge who presided over his trial of bias and argue that courtroom restrictions violated Anthony's constitutional right to a public trial.
In court filings, Anthony's defense team, led by attorney Russell Wilson, requests that the judge recuse himself from all remaining post-trial proceedings and also seeks a new trial based on alleged constitutional and legal errors during Anthony's prosecution.
Anthony, 19, was convicted of murdering Metcalf after fatally stabbing him during an altercation at a Frisco track meet. A jury sentenced him to 35 years in prison.
The defense claims that the judge's public comments following the trial created the appearance that he could not impartially rule on Anthony's post-trial motions. The comments included the judge stating that the jury "got it right" and defending several of his rulings during the trial.
The defense argues that these statements create an appearance that the judge cannot fairly consider Anthony's request for a new trial. The accompanying 63-page motion for a new trial focuses on alleged constitutional violations rather than Anthony's guilt or innocence.
The defense claims that Anthony's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated because cameras were barred from the courtroom and only 27 seats were available to members of the public during the proceedings. They also argue that prosecutors failed to honor an off-the-record evidentiary agreement regarding character and extraneous-act evidence.
The motion further challenges the jury instructions, claiming they made it more difficult for jurors to fully consider Anthony's self-defense argument. The defense contends that the cumulative effect of these alleged errors deprived Anthony of a fair trial and warrants a new one.
Following the trial, the judge defended his decision to prohibit cameras from the courtroom, stating that the restrictions were intended to protect the judicial process, witnesses, and jurors. Under Texas law, the judge is expected to refer the recusal motion to a regional administrative judge, who will decide whether a hearing on the request is necessary.
