McKINNEY, Texas — Karmelo Anthony's effort to overturn his murder conviction suffered a major setback Saturday when a Texas judge denied his request for a new trial, leaving his conviction and 35-year prison sentence intact.
The ruling came after a closely watched two-day hearing that focused heavily on a dispute between Anthony's former defense attorneys and prosecutors over an informal agreement about what evidence could be presented to the jury. The disagreement became particularly important because Anthony ultimately chose not to testify in his own defense.
Anthony was convicted in June of murdering 17-year-old Austin Metcalf during a confrontation at a high school track meet in Frisco, Texas. The jury rejected his self-defense argument and sentenced him to 35 years in prison.
Judge rejects request for another trial
Retired Kaufman County District Judge Michael Chitty, who was assigned to handle the post-trial proceedings after the original judge was removed from the case, issued a brief order rejecting Anthony's motion.
Chitty said he had reviewed the motion, court record, evidence, arguments, briefs and applicable law before determining that the request should be denied.
The decision means Anthony's conviction remains in effect while his legal team moves forward with an appeal.
Anthony's appellate attorney, Russell Wilson, said the defense intends to continue challenging the conviction before the Fifth Court of Appeals and pursue other available legal remedies.
Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis said prosecutors expected the ruling and remain confident in the jury's verdict and the legal process.
The dispute that became central to the case
At the heart of Anthony's new-trial request was what lawyers described as a “gentleman's agreement” between the prosecution and defense.
The informal arrangement was intended to keep potentially inflammatory character evidence about both Anthony and Metcalf away from the jury and concentrate the trial on what happened during the confrontation at the track meet.
Prosecutors said the agreement was designed to “keep the peace” amid intense public attention and racial tensions surrounding the case. Both Anthony, who is Black, and Metcalf, who was white, became subjects of intense public discussion after the fatal confrontation, although attorneys for both sides maintained that race was not a factor in the killing.
The problem emerged when the two sides disagreed about how broadly the agreement applied.
Anthony's former lawyers testified that they understood the arrangement to allow Anthony to testify about the confrontation without opening the door to extensive questioning about his past.
Prosecutors disputed that interpretation.
Why Anthony did not testify
The disagreement became especially consequential because Anthony had been expected to testify as part of his self-defense strategy.
Former lead defense attorney Mike Howard testified that he believed the agreement covered Anthony's testimony. Former defense attorney Toby Shook similarly testified that the original defense team had expected Anthony to take the witness stand.
But when prosecutors and defense lawyers clashed over the scope of the agreement, Anthony ultimately did not testify.
The defense argued that the dispute effectively prevented Anthony from presenting a complete defense and that he was coerced into giving up his right to testify.
Prosecutors rejected that characterization and argued that the agreement had been honored.
That disagreement became one of the principal reasons Anthony's new legal team sought a retrial.
Previously unseen evidence surfaced
The new-trial hearing also exposed jurors to information that had been deliberately kept outside the original trial.
Prosecutors presented evidence concerning alleged prior behavior by Anthony, including messages and allegations involving violence and knives. Other evidence concerning Metcalf's alleged past behavior also surfaced.
The information had not been presented to the original jury because both sides had agreed to focus on the events surrounding the fatal confrontation rather than turning the trial into a broader examination of the teenagers' histories.
The emergence of that evidence during the post-trial hearing demonstrated why the original attorneys had attempted to establish boundaries around character evidence.
The defense now argues that the disagreement over those boundaries ultimately affected Anthony's decision not to testify.
The original judge was removed
Anthony's new-trial effort received another boost earlier in August when the judge who presided over his murder trial was removed from further proceedings.
Judge John Roach was recused after Anthony's attorneys questioned his impartiality, pointing in part to comments Roach made after the conviction.
In a television interview following the verdict, Roach said the jury “got it right” and defended several of his decisions during the trial.
A replacement judge determined that the circumstances created grounds to question whether Roach's impartiality could reasonably be perceived as compromised.
That decision did not overturn Anthony's conviction, but it allowed a different judge, Michael Chitty, to consider the motion for a new trial.
Anthony's original defense focused on self-defense
The fatal confrontation occurred during a high school track meet in Frisco in April 2025.
Prosecutors argued that Anthony fatally stabbed Metcalf during an altercation after Anthony was told to leave an area associated with Metcalf's team.
Anthony's defense maintained that he acted in self-defense.
The jury ultimately rejected that argument and found Anthony guilty of murder after approximately three hours of deliberation. Jurors then deliberated for several more hours before imposing a 35-year sentence.
Anthony did not take the witness stand during the trial, meaning jurors never heard his account of the confrontation directly from him under oath.
That fact became central to the new-trial argument.
The court's decision does not end the case
Although Chitty rejected the request for a new trial, Anthony's legal options are not exhausted.
His appellate team has indicated that it intends to challenge the decision before the Fifth Court of Appeals and continue pursuing legal remedies.
The defense is expected to argue that the circumstances surrounding the trial — including the dispute over the informal evidence agreement, Anthony's decision not to testify and restrictions imposed during the proceedings — deprived him of a fair trial.
The prosecution, meanwhile, maintains that the original proceedings were fundamentally sound and that the jury's verdict should stand.
Why the ruling matters
The ruling is significant because a successful new-trial motion could have forced the state to retry one of the most closely watched murder cases in Texas.
Instead, Anthony remains convicted and sentenced to 35 years.
The hearing nevertheless revealed details about the case that were never presented to the original jury and provided a rare look into the strategic disagreements between the prosecution and defense.
It also showed how difficult it can be to challenge a conviction after a jury has already reached a verdict.
A defendant seeking a new trial must demonstrate more than disagreement with the outcome. The defense must establish a legally sufficient reason showing that the original proceedings were fundamentally flawed or that newly considered circumstances warrant another trial.
Judge Chitty concluded that Anthony's arguments did not meet that threshold.
Appeal becomes Anthony's next major fight
For Anthony, the courtroom battle now moves to the appellate process.
His attorneys maintain that the issues raised in the new-trial motion are substantial and deserve review by a higher court.
The prosecution sees the ruling differently, arguing that the jury heard sufficient evidence to reach its verdict and that the conviction should remain intact.
The dispute over Anthony's testimony is likely to remain an important part of the appeal.
What began as an informal agreement intended to limit inflammatory evidence ultimately became one of the central issues in Anthony's attempt to obtain another trial.
For now, however, the judge's decision leaves the original verdict standing: Karmelo Anthony remains convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Also Read: Iran Threatens Hormuz Stranglehold as Trump Raises Stakes