Aug. 21, 2026
Karmelo Anthony Retrial Hearing: Disturbing, Violent Details About Both Victim and Defendant Kept From Jury In “Gentleman’s Agreement”
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Explosive new details are emerging in the retrial hearing for Karmelo Anthony, the black Texas teen who was convicted of murdering fellow teen Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet. We are learning there was a backroom, gentleman’s deal between Anthony’s former defense attorneys and prosecutors to keep damning evidence of violence and racism about both young men out of the trial. Anthony’s new attorneys telling the court their client couldn’t testify on his own behalf because of the deal, and are demanding a new trial.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Friday, August twenty first, and we are hearing some shocking new details in the case of Carmelo Anthony. He's right now arguing trying to get a new trial. What we're learning is all the stuff that wasn't allowed in his first trial. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. I think everybody's up on this teenage. You got thirty five years for stabbing another team after a confrontation of the Texas Track Meet. Race was a part of it. He's black, the victim is white. Okay, Robes. That sets up what was an awful, awful series of I mean a months of just people fighting online racial undertones. He's being treated unfairly. The white kid instigated all this stuff. So now Robes, he wants a new trial and the stuff coming out now is all about race.
00:00:54
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I have a couple of thoughts. First of all, do you remember when this all first started, we were hearing from Metcalf's family, actually the victim's family, but from many, many people making it very clear this had nothing to do with race. It just so happens to be that one person was black, one person was white. But race had nothing to do with the argument or the standoff that led to the actual death. So we were told that repeatedly and often, and yes, because people on either side, black or white, had feelings, we were just reminded, hey, guys, don't make this about race, because it wasn't about race. So there's that, because turns out that's all bullshit. Number two, we're also like hearing things that seemed to be almost criminal that weren't allowed into this trial to begin with. Yes, and that's concerning because look, we always, always, we often folks who have been sentenced and convicted wanting new trials, and they try to put up evidence and it's usually totally like yeah, yeah, yeah, this stuff is like something we've never seen before.
00:02:12
Speaker 1: And you ask, well, why in God's name was all this stuff left out of the trial, because, folks, and we will get into there was a secret deal made between the attorneys to keep this stuff out. Why Robes, because they thought it would be too incendiary given all the attention the trial was getting. In Robes, they said they wanted to just focus on what happened that day in the stands and that's all. And the two sides agreed to do that.
00:02:42
Speaker 2: And that's an insane way to look at a murder because how could you not consider all of the events, all of the sentiments, all of the things that were happening in each party's lives that led to that moment where someone died. They're all relevant because they all build up to what occurred in that moment.
00:03:07
Speaker 1: Isn't that common? That's a common thing. You have to know about that person's mindset leading up to. Sometimes it's days leading up to. But what was his mood right beforehand? Was his mood that morning? All that stuff we were told robes that. Now this deal was made. That means in the first trial nothing could be talked about about character other than what happened in that incident.
00:03:31
Speaker 2: Because this matters character, It matters past acts can contribute to current behavior and also a it could also provide a defense for somebody if someone knew about someone else's behavior and what they might anticipate or fear from someone based on prior acts. All of this should be a part of a murder trial where someone's freedom and life is on the line, especially when someone's life has been taken.
00:04:00
Speaker 3: You need to consider.
00:04:02
Speaker 2: All the facts, and I would imagine anyone listening to this, anyone who's a jury, wouldn't you want to know all of the facts before making a decision or a determination about someone else's life, especially when you got young, young people involved.
00:04:18
Speaker 1: So I guess to that point, Ben Robes, is it relevant to know that the defendant in the case had sent text messages that were violent in nature, had made some threats? Is that something the jury should have known? Should the jury have also known that the victim in this case had been given twelve months probation because he was caught writing the inward Hyle Hitler and kill all blacks on a wall.
00:04:47
Speaker 2: Yes, And I think all of that needed to be needed to be known because number one, it would speak to a mindset that both young men walked into that track meet with. And I also think some of these facts that we're finding out should have been considered in the sentencing of Carmelo Anthony as well.
00:05:10
Speaker 1: None of it was. So here we are he is in uh yes, sentence of thirty five years. But this hearing continues today. Yesterday was day one of it. Both sides got to make an opening statement. They're putting on witnesses. So she just trying to convince this judge, which is a new judge different from the trial attorney, because the defense wanted a new trial a new attorney for this. They didn't want the same gayage judge. They a new judge I wrote, they had to fill and this guy wouldn't be on their side.
00:05:37
Speaker 2: Perhaps because the judge told the world. He went very public with the statement. After the verdict was read and the sentencing was handed down, he said, the jury got it right.
00:05:51
Speaker 1: Yeah, you don't want to really ask that guy for a new trial because he thinks the first one was fine. And it's his behavior in the courtroom. Some of the things he did there are gonna be questions. It makes sense to get a new judge in there, so they do. So they have a new person in there listening robes and we're hearing about this this agreement that was made, and they're making an argument that even his Carmela Anthony's rights were violated because it wasn't enough public access to the courtroom. So they're making some of those arguments. But robes now, and I've seen several places that the gloves are absolutely off. This is about to get more awful. So they went through the things Robes, the things we didn't know about these two as far as their character beforehand. These are all the things robes that they wanted to talk about but decided not to. Now, does it make sense here Robes As we get into it and it's a bunch of stuff, does it make sense that both sides it was a bit of a risk both sides it made their person look bad. Some of this stuff makes Carmelo look terrible and some of the stuff makes Austin Metcalf look terrible.
00:06:58
Speaker 2: And I think that's the only way a deal like this would have even been considered, because both sides had reasons why they didn't want certain evidence to be admitted into court. And so that's why a gentleman's deal was reached to keep this, I would believe, and I think most people would agree relevant evidence out of the jury's consideration because there was something to be lost on each side and something to be gained by the other.
00:07:29
Speaker 1: Okay, let's start. I'm going to start with Austin Metcalf and his brother. The defense laid out and they showed it. They have evidence of it. It's all documented. This isn't made up stuff Rose, but it starts with again, this is all the stuff that was known during the first trial that the two sides agreed would not be included in the first trial as character for these two all right, So they presented a document that showed Austin Metcalf, who was the victim and he did have a twin brother, hunter, both of them twelve months of probation for a graffiti incident in which they were caught graffitiing if you will, racist language onto a wall. They presented Robes in court police body cam video in which you hear them say to this cop, quote we did some dumb stuff. Quote we did some vandalism. Austin Metcalf says that and Robes, Okay, kids were spray painting. Being silly kids doesn't prove he's unterrible. Whatever. What character thing is that, Robes, It's what they were putting on the wall in graffiti. This is stunning. Ah.
00:08:36
Speaker 2: The language that they graffiti was KKK kill all blacks the N word written out and Hyle Hitler.
00:08:46
Speaker 1: Does the jury need to hear that? Does it matter? Right? He's a victim, he was stabbed in the chest and he's dead. Does anything in his background, his mindset of what he thought about possibly thought about black people play into this at all.
00:08:58
Speaker 2: I think that that should be for the jury to decide, especially if I don't know if Carmelo Anthony knew about this and knew to be more fearful of these two based on past documented acts.
00:09:14
Speaker 1: Okay, the graffiti is one thing, and it goes on. Austin Metcalf bullied a black student October of twenty twenty three, to the point that a teacher actually emailed and reported that Austin Metcalf had used racist language against this student. It goes on Hunter, the twin brother was accused of threatening to strike to cheerleaders, threatened to hit them, to the point that the parents of these cheerleaders reported this to authorities and said the girls were scared of Austin and Hunter. Hunter even used this line as documented quote his hands are bisexual, meaning he doesn't mind hitting a boy or a girl. Robes. It goes on a female student and claimed that the twin brothers assaulted her. This was in twenty twenty four. Austin Metcalf was suspended seven times for disciplinary reasons, including cursing at teachers. He was suspended once after discussing bringing a gun to school. Robes. It goes on and on. There was a video on his phone that shows a black student eating a banana and him making fun. It is another that shows Austin Metcalf cheering on a friend who was chasing a black kid and yelling racial slurs. Robes.
00:10:33
Speaker 2: There's another video from Austin's phone Austin laughing at a black student. The student tells him to stop, and Austin hits him in the face in a video on his own phone.
00:10:43
Speaker 1: Okay, so Robes, this is stunning. Okay, none of this suggests he did anything that day that called for him to be retaliated against the way he was. Correct.
00:10:57
Speaker 2: That's that's fair, that is correct. But I do believe here's my question. Did this since it was so well documented and so well known obviously among people in his circle or in his school, I would argue, could Carmelo Anthony have been aware of these brothers' past acts and history and current feelings about black people? And could that have impacted his feelings of vulnerability, of being afraid of feeling like he needed to get ahead of them given the size differential, but knowing their history did Carmelo Anthony have access to any of this information.
00:11:42
Speaker 1: They said he was only aware at one I think it was a game that he was aware of some violent tendencies because there was an incident, not between him and the Metcalf boys, but he saw he was aware of who these guys are and what they're capable of. At least that's what the defense's trying.
00:11:57
Speaker 2: To argue, and I would argue that that would be something the jury should be able to consider.
00:12:01
Speaker 1: So that was all the stuff about Austin Metcalf that came out. There are also a lot of other things that were presented Robes about the prosecution about Carmelo Anthony's background text at one am, I'm low key on the verge. They didn't say who this was directed to, but at one o'clock on the day of this killing. They're trying to suggest that he was on the edge for some reason.
00:12:23
Speaker 3: Already he was in a violent mindset already.
00:12:26
Speaker 1: That's the same day though, Robes, this is this kind of stands out.
00:12:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, his girlfriend, his own girlfriend reported Carmelo Anthony to the assistant principle for quote, stalking behavior, and then a text from Carmelo seems to say he has punched a girl in the face.
00:12:45
Speaker 3: This text was.
00:12:46
Speaker 1: To whom it seemed like over time they were saying. There were just a couple of references that made it clear or suggested that he had hit a girl before, had punched a girl. This other one about shooting up to school. Text to a friend saying, I'm gonna shoot the school up tomorrow with my blick with his gun is what he's talking about. Then he sent a follow up said I'm kidding. I would never actually do that. Take that for what it means. Another text, I like punching people. Another one says when I get mad, I can't control myself. Another to his girlfriend saying I'm going to get you. Another to his girlfriend, how many bullets you want? Another to his girlfriend. When I stab somebody, I'm gonna lick their blood off the blade. There's more of this type of stuff, a fascination sometimes with guns, with knives, with violence, with blood ropes. What did you What does the jury supposed to do with that? You seem like you have two people who are on a terrible collision course who had the right kind of tendencies that would clash. One showing racist tendencies before the other, a black kid on the edge and armed and fascinated.
00:13:56
Speaker 3: With Yeah, it sounds like a powder keg of a situation.
00:13:58
Speaker 2: And you said, with racist tendies, I would argue with Raese's actions, But yes, you can understand. Then perhaps can you understand I guess I should ask why Carmelo Anthony's defense attorneys would agree to this gentleman's agreement with the prosecution, recognizing that both sides had a lot to lose if any of this stuff got out, and maybe the community at large would be suffering more than anyone.
00:14:22
Speaker 1: But now here we go, it's out there and robs. You already know the conversation happening online. You have folks. I was reading this on social media and folks with these long rundowns of Carmel said this, and then he did this, and then he did this, and then he's violent. He should have done all this. And then you go up and see who they are, and sure enough they're conservative. And then on the other side you see this whole thing. Somebody to do a rite up about all this stuff Austin did, and sure enough you see they're leaning the other way where it's the same stuff. People are plucking out exactly what they need to make their argument.
00:14:54
Speaker 3: With, leaving out what the other.
00:14:55
Speaker 1: Heaving out with the other side. These are two kids who had some troubling behavior that was documentary robes. Should the jury just have been aware of that?
00:15:05
Speaker 3: I believe so.
00:15:06
Speaker 2: More information is only going to lead to a better outcome, I would think. I understand in every trial there are things that they consider inadmissible or that would be prejudicial to a jury.
00:15:19
Speaker 3: I understand that.
00:15:20
Speaker 2: But in this case, this all seems very applicable to the situation and would be helpful in getting to a better or more just verdict and sentencing.
00:15:31
Speaker 1: You remember how hot it was around that trial.
00:15:33
Speaker 2: Can you imagine that this stuff was out? I, well, it's out now, so we're gonna now see. And now there's added anger because it seems to have been with help. Yes, some secret deal. Nobody wants to hear about a secret deal. And why wasn't it written down? Why wasn't this actually an official deal?
00:15:50
Speaker 1: That's why they call it a gentleman's agreement, And that gentleman's agreement is really at the core of this now motion to try to get a new trial. Stay here, we'll explain how close Carmelo Anthony got to testifying on his own behalf in that first trial. And also why even the judge in this new motion hearing is saying, I ain't never seen anything like this.
00:16:24
Speaker 2: Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. We are talking about an explosive hearing that is still ongoing. It resumes, it resumed again today, a two day hearing at least trying to figure out whether or not Carmelo Anthony deserves another trial. There's a new judge, there are new high powered defense attorneys who have taken over this case. In my goodness, what a difference a new set of attorneys makes, and certainly we'll see what a difference a new judge may make.
00:16:52
Speaker 1: New strategy. I wonder if these new attorneys would have at all done the same strategy to have a gentleman's agreement. And this is fascinating. Robes, the new attorneys are going to be questioning the old attorneys. They are going to be on the stand and they have to question It is fascinating. And again no cameras once again in this when they do have this new judge, but Robes, they did want him to testify. I didn't realize this. You pointed this out to me early and reminded me of it. Rather, there were some public statements by his family that seemed to call in a question the defense strategy.
00:17:27
Speaker 2: Yes, immediately, and I thought, this is bizarre. Why would Carmelo Anthony's family members be speaking out against their own attorneys.
00:17:38
Speaker 3: And it was.
00:17:39
Speaker 2: Never really clear what they did wrong or why they were so upset and why they didn't feel like the people they were paying to defend their child that they didn't have a say in how this defense was being presented. And now we're understanding a lot more of the why behind the families fairly immediate and critical comments about their own defense team.
00:18:02
Speaker 1: Rose. Maybe they wanted him to take the stand, because you had a lot of witnesses, right, and they were all Austin Metcalf's friends, the kids, they were there. No one was able to get on the stand and speak about that incident that was for the defense. So everybody gave up and said that said the same thing. They said it the same that's even come up in this motion, Like everybody had those same They were asked the same questions, they got the exact same answers. We actually thought that when we were watching some of the stuff come out the first time, everybody had the exact same story. Okay, but bro, he's the only one. He couldn't testify because they were afraid the prosecution had renigged on the Gentleman's agreement. So they didn't want to risk putting him on the stand and then the prosecution go after him in a way that had him control.
00:18:48
Speaker 2: Right, because there was nothing in writing, There was nothing preventing the prosecution legally from going after Carmelo Anthony about his past statements, his texts, this issue with his girlfriend. So yes, there was too much of a concern that they couldn't trust the prosecutors on this gentleman's deal, even though they had clearly upheld their side of it. They did not go after Austin Metcalf. They did not go after what they knew about this young man. And you know that's always a little bit risky anyway when you're a defense attorney to attack the victim. So look, they had upheld theirs, but they had no way of knowing for sure whether or not prosecutors would uphold their end up things.
00:19:27
Speaker 3: So the only.
00:19:30
Speaker 2: Play they felt they had was to not put Carmelo Anthony up on the.
00:19:34
Speaker 1: Stand, and this new team is now using that to say he was denied a fair trial. He was denied a full defense because he wanted to testify in his own own defense and his stupid deal didn't allow him to do so that is a big part of the argument they're making. See how that one flies. And we're hearing this, it sounds nuts to us, Rodes, it sounds the hell we were just talking about Twop and the deal that was made all those twenty years ago. They've known who killed Tupac, but they made a deal with some guy and they couldn't prosecute him. Okay, this is one of those things, Robes, that this deal behind the scenes of what's going on. Yo, knew all this and decided not to say an Again, the judge himself expressed shock, Like he said it, Robes, I have never been a part of a murder case where there were this many off the record deals that were floating around. Wow, so rob this is extraordinary. So no, folks, this is not normal.
00:20:32
Speaker 2: Yes, And when the judge says that that is a big deal because he knows more than most what types of back room deals happen in so many cases, especially high stakes cases. This sort of thing happens. The idea of this happening happens. But the extent to which it happened, and the extent and the amount of evidence that was kept from that courtroom kept from the jury, that is remarkable. And the question is should it be grounds for a new trial?
00:21:06
Speaker 1: We shall see. This will continue today. I believe Robes. Today is expected to be the only other day of it, so Thursday and Friday, and when the judge makes a decision, I don't think it's going to be immediate. I'm not sure when we're going to hear this, but ro this is a big deal. Two days he is going to wrap up making his argument for possibly getting a new trial.
00:21:24
Speaker 2: And you know, you rarely see a situation in which a defendant that has just been convicted and sentenced to an extended period of time immediately have a hearing like this. And we'll see very quickly if a new trial is granted. If it is, this is extraordinary.
00:21:40
Speaker 1: In Robes, we're going to have to go through this all. I wish this stuff had been out, we got it all out of the way once Roges, this is going to be an incredibly intense and ugly fight, public fight.
00:21:51
Speaker 2: You have a lot of racial lines in the state of Texas.
00:21:55
Speaker 1: Right, say it out loud. There is a black kid that would be quick to label a thug. There's a white kid who's the victim who actually got in trouble for spray painting the inward onto walls. What are we supposed to do? What are you supposed to do? What's fair? What's right? We should just have better conversations, Rose, Will you just commit to that? Yep?
00:22:20
Speaker 3: All right, and well we can hope for that.
00:22:22
Speaker 2: We'll see what happens, but we will of course be following. No, but if look at conversations, actual conversations and not heated confrontations can take place, at least in some groups, at least we can continue to talk when we haven't and instead of becoming violent, maybe we can just have understanding.
00:22:44
Speaker 3: Let's let's hope and end on that. With that, everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Roebuck alongside T. J. Holmes. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Friday, August twenty first, and we are hearing some shocking new details in the case of Carmelo Anthony. He's right now arguing trying to get a new trial. What we're learning is all the stuff that wasn't allowed in his first trial. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. I think everybody's up on this teenage. You got thirty five years for stabbing another team after a confrontation of the Texas Track Meet. Race was a part of it. He's black, the victim is white. Okay, Robes. That sets up what was an awful, awful series of I mean a months of just people fighting online racial undertones. He's being treated unfairly. The white kid instigated all this stuff. So now Robes, he wants a new trial and the stuff coming out now is all about race.
00:00:54
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I have a couple of thoughts. First of all, do you remember when this all first started, we were hearing from Metcalf's family, actually the victim's family, but from many, many people making it very clear this had nothing to do with race. It just so happens to be that one person was black, one person was white. But race had nothing to do with the argument or the standoff that led to the actual death. So we were told that repeatedly and often, and yes, because people on either side, black or white, had feelings, we were just reminded, hey, guys, don't make this about race, because it wasn't about race. So there's that, because turns out that's all bullshit. Number two, we're also like hearing things that seemed to be almost criminal that weren't allowed into this trial to begin with. Yes, and that's concerning because look, we always, always, we often folks who have been sentenced and convicted wanting new trials, and they try to put up evidence and it's usually totally like yeah, yeah, yeah, this stuff is like something we've never seen before.
00:02:12
Speaker 1: And you ask, well, why in God's name was all this stuff left out of the trial, because, folks, and we will get into there was a secret deal made between the attorneys to keep this stuff out. Why Robes, because they thought it would be too incendiary given all the attention the trial was getting. In Robes, they said they wanted to just focus on what happened that day in the stands and that's all. And the two sides agreed to do that.
00:02:42
Speaker 2: And that's an insane way to look at a murder because how could you not consider all of the events, all of the sentiments, all of the things that were happening in each party's lives that led to that moment where someone died. They're all relevant because they all build up to what occurred in that moment.
00:03:07
Speaker 1: Isn't that common? That's a common thing. You have to know about that person's mindset leading up to. Sometimes it's days leading up to. But what was his mood right beforehand? Was his mood that morning? All that stuff we were told robes that. Now this deal was made. That means in the first trial nothing could be talked about about character other than what happened in that incident.
00:03:31
Speaker 2: Because this matters character, It matters past acts can contribute to current behavior and also a it could also provide a defense for somebody if someone knew about someone else's behavior and what they might anticipate or fear from someone based on prior acts. All of this should be a part of a murder trial where someone's freedom and life is on the line, especially when someone's life has been taken.
00:04:00
Speaker 3: You need to consider.
00:04:02
Speaker 2: All the facts, and I would imagine anyone listening to this, anyone who's a jury, wouldn't you want to know all of the facts before making a decision or a determination about someone else's life, especially when you got young, young people involved.
00:04:18
Speaker 1: So I guess to that point, Ben Robes, is it relevant to know that the defendant in the case had sent text messages that were violent in nature, had made some threats? Is that something the jury should have known? Should the jury have also known that the victim in this case had been given twelve months probation because he was caught writing the inward Hyle Hitler and kill all blacks on a wall.
00:04:47
Speaker 2: Yes, And I think all of that needed to be needed to be known because number one, it would speak to a mindset that both young men walked into that track meet with. And I also think some of these facts that we're finding out should have been considered in the sentencing of Carmelo Anthony as well.
00:05:10
Speaker 1: None of it was. So here we are he is in uh yes, sentence of thirty five years. But this hearing continues today. Yesterday was day one of it. Both sides got to make an opening statement. They're putting on witnesses. So she just trying to convince this judge, which is a new judge different from the trial attorney, because the defense wanted a new trial a new attorney for this. They didn't want the same gayage judge. They a new judge I wrote, they had to fill and this guy wouldn't be on their side.
00:05:37
Speaker 2: Perhaps because the judge told the world. He went very public with the statement. After the verdict was read and the sentencing was handed down, he said, the jury got it right.
00:05:51
Speaker 1: Yeah, you don't want to really ask that guy for a new trial because he thinks the first one was fine. And it's his behavior in the courtroom. Some of the things he did there are gonna be questions. It makes sense to get a new judge in there, so they do. So they have a new person in there listening robes and we're hearing about this this agreement that was made, and they're making an argument that even his Carmela Anthony's rights were violated because it wasn't enough public access to the courtroom. So they're making some of those arguments. But robes now, and I've seen several places that the gloves are absolutely off. This is about to get more awful. So they went through the things Robes, the things we didn't know about these two as far as their character beforehand. These are all the things robes that they wanted to talk about but decided not to. Now, does it make sense here Robes As we get into it and it's a bunch of stuff, does it make sense that both sides it was a bit of a risk both sides it made their person look bad. Some of this stuff makes Carmelo look terrible and some of the stuff makes Austin Metcalf look terrible.
00:06:58
Speaker 2: And I think that's the only way a deal like this would have even been considered, because both sides had reasons why they didn't want certain evidence to be admitted into court. And so that's why a gentleman's deal was reached to keep this, I would believe, and I think most people would agree relevant evidence out of the jury's consideration because there was something to be lost on each side and something to be gained by the other.
00:07:29
Speaker 1: Okay, let's start. I'm going to start with Austin Metcalf and his brother. The defense laid out and they showed it. They have evidence of it. It's all documented. This isn't made up stuff Rose, but it starts with again, this is all the stuff that was known during the first trial that the two sides agreed would not be included in the first trial as character for these two all right, So they presented a document that showed Austin Metcalf, who was the victim and he did have a twin brother, hunter, both of them twelve months of probation for a graffiti incident in which they were caught graffitiing if you will, racist language onto a wall. They presented Robes in court police body cam video in which you hear them say to this cop, quote we did some dumb stuff. Quote we did some vandalism. Austin Metcalf says that and Robes, Okay, kids were spray painting. Being silly kids doesn't prove he's unterrible. Whatever. What character thing is that, Robes, It's what they were putting on the wall in graffiti. This is stunning. Ah.
00:08:36
Speaker 2: The language that they graffiti was KKK kill all blacks the N word written out and Hyle Hitler.
00:08:46
Speaker 1: Does the jury need to hear that? Does it matter? Right? He's a victim, he was stabbed in the chest and he's dead. Does anything in his background, his mindset of what he thought about possibly thought about black people play into this at all.
00:08:58
Speaker 2: I think that that should be for the jury to decide, especially if I don't know if Carmelo Anthony knew about this and knew to be more fearful of these two based on past documented acts.
00:09:14
Speaker 1: Okay, the graffiti is one thing, and it goes on. Austin Metcalf bullied a black student October of twenty twenty three, to the point that a teacher actually emailed and reported that Austin Metcalf had used racist language against this student. It goes on Hunter, the twin brother was accused of threatening to strike to cheerleaders, threatened to hit them, to the point that the parents of these cheerleaders reported this to authorities and said the girls were scared of Austin and Hunter. Hunter even used this line as documented quote his hands are bisexual, meaning he doesn't mind hitting a boy or a girl. Robes. It goes on a female student and claimed that the twin brothers assaulted her. This was in twenty twenty four. Austin Metcalf was suspended seven times for disciplinary reasons, including cursing at teachers. He was suspended once after discussing bringing a gun to school. Robes. It goes on and on. There was a video on his phone that shows a black student eating a banana and him making fun. It is another that shows Austin Metcalf cheering on a friend who was chasing a black kid and yelling racial slurs. Robes.
00:10:33
Speaker 2: There's another video from Austin's phone Austin laughing at a black student. The student tells him to stop, and Austin hits him in the face in a video on his own phone.
00:10:43
Speaker 1: Okay, so Robes, this is stunning. Okay, none of this suggests he did anything that day that called for him to be retaliated against the way he was. Correct.
00:10:57
Speaker 2: That's that's fair, that is correct. But I do believe here's my question. Did this since it was so well documented and so well known obviously among people in his circle or in his school, I would argue, could Carmelo Anthony have been aware of these brothers' past acts and history and current feelings about black people? And could that have impacted his feelings of vulnerability, of being afraid of feeling like he needed to get ahead of them given the size differential, but knowing their history did Carmelo Anthony have access to any of this information.
00:11:42
Speaker 1: They said he was only aware at one I think it was a game that he was aware of some violent tendencies because there was an incident, not between him and the Metcalf boys, but he saw he was aware of who these guys are and what they're capable of. At least that's what the defense's trying.
00:11:57
Speaker 2: To argue, and I would argue that that would be something the jury should be able to consider.
00:12:01
Speaker 1: So that was all the stuff about Austin Metcalf that came out. There are also a lot of other things that were presented Robes about the prosecution about Carmelo Anthony's background text at one am, I'm low key on the verge. They didn't say who this was directed to, but at one o'clock on the day of this killing. They're trying to suggest that he was on the edge for some reason.
00:12:23
Speaker 3: Already he was in a violent mindset already.
00:12:26
Speaker 1: That's the same day though, Robes, this is this kind of stands out.
00:12:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, his girlfriend, his own girlfriend reported Carmelo Anthony to the assistant principle for quote, stalking behavior, and then a text from Carmelo seems to say he has punched a girl in the face.
00:12:45
Speaker 3: This text was.
00:12:46
Speaker 1: To whom it seemed like over time they were saying. There were just a couple of references that made it clear or suggested that he had hit a girl before, had punched a girl. This other one about shooting up to school. Text to a friend saying, I'm gonna shoot the school up tomorrow with my blick with his gun is what he's talking about. Then he sent a follow up said I'm kidding. I would never actually do that. Take that for what it means. Another text, I like punching people. Another one says when I get mad, I can't control myself. Another to his girlfriend saying I'm going to get you. Another to his girlfriend, how many bullets you want? Another to his girlfriend. When I stab somebody, I'm gonna lick their blood off the blade. There's more of this type of stuff, a fascination sometimes with guns, with knives, with violence, with blood ropes. What did you What does the jury supposed to do with that? You seem like you have two people who are on a terrible collision course who had the right kind of tendencies that would clash. One showing racist tendencies before the other, a black kid on the edge and armed and fascinated.
00:13:56
Speaker 3: With Yeah, it sounds like a powder keg of a situation.
00:13:58
Speaker 2: And you said, with racist tendies, I would argue with Raese's actions, But yes, you can understand. Then perhaps can you understand I guess I should ask why Carmelo Anthony's defense attorneys would agree to this gentleman's agreement with the prosecution, recognizing that both sides had a lot to lose if any of this stuff got out, and maybe the community at large would be suffering more than anyone.
00:14:22
Speaker 1: But now here we go, it's out there and robs. You already know the conversation happening online. You have folks. I was reading this on social media and folks with these long rundowns of Carmel said this, and then he did this, and then he did this, and then he's violent. He should have done all this. And then you go up and see who they are, and sure enough they're conservative. And then on the other side you see this whole thing. Somebody to do a rite up about all this stuff Austin did, and sure enough you see they're leaning the other way where it's the same stuff. People are plucking out exactly what they need to make their argument.
00:14:54
Speaker 3: With, leaving out what the other.
00:14:55
Speaker 1: Heaving out with the other side. These are two kids who had some troubling behavior that was documentary robes. Should the jury just have been aware of that?
00:15:05
Speaker 3: I believe so.
00:15:06
Speaker 2: More information is only going to lead to a better outcome, I would think. I understand in every trial there are things that they consider inadmissible or that would be prejudicial to a jury.
00:15:19
Speaker 3: I understand that.
00:15:20
Speaker 2: But in this case, this all seems very applicable to the situation and would be helpful in getting to a better or more just verdict and sentencing.
00:15:31
Speaker 1: You remember how hot it was around that trial.
00:15:33
Speaker 2: Can you imagine that this stuff was out? I, well, it's out now, so we're gonna now see. And now there's added anger because it seems to have been with help. Yes, some secret deal. Nobody wants to hear about a secret deal. And why wasn't it written down? Why wasn't this actually an official deal?
00:15:50
Speaker 1: That's why they call it a gentleman's agreement, And that gentleman's agreement is really at the core of this now motion to try to get a new trial. Stay here, we'll explain how close Carmelo Anthony got to testifying on his own behalf in that first trial. And also why even the judge in this new motion hearing is saying, I ain't never seen anything like this.
00:16:24
Speaker 2: Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. We are talking about an explosive hearing that is still ongoing. It resumes, it resumed again today, a two day hearing at least trying to figure out whether or not Carmelo Anthony deserves another trial. There's a new judge, there are new high powered defense attorneys who have taken over this case. In my goodness, what a difference a new set of attorneys makes, and certainly we'll see what a difference a new judge may make.
00:16:52
Speaker 1: New strategy. I wonder if these new attorneys would have at all done the same strategy to have a gentleman's agreement. And this is fascinating. Robes, the new attorneys are going to be questioning the old attorneys. They are going to be on the stand and they have to question It is fascinating. And again no cameras once again in this when they do have this new judge, but Robes, they did want him to testify. I didn't realize this. You pointed this out to me early and reminded me of it. Rather, there were some public statements by his family that seemed to call in a question the defense strategy.
00:17:27
Speaker 2: Yes, immediately, and I thought, this is bizarre. Why would Carmelo Anthony's family members be speaking out against their own attorneys.
00:17:38
Speaker 3: And it was.
00:17:39
Speaker 2: Never really clear what they did wrong or why they were so upset and why they didn't feel like the people they were paying to defend their child that they didn't have a say in how this defense was being presented. And now we're understanding a lot more of the why behind the families fairly immediate and critical comments about their own defense team.
00:18:02
Speaker 1: Rose. Maybe they wanted him to take the stand, because you had a lot of witnesses, right, and they were all Austin Metcalf's friends, the kids, they were there. No one was able to get on the stand and speak about that incident that was for the defense. So everybody gave up and said that said the same thing. They said it the same that's even come up in this motion, Like everybody had those same They were asked the same questions, they got the exact same answers. We actually thought that when we were watching some of the stuff come out the first time, everybody had the exact same story. Okay, but bro, he's the only one. He couldn't testify because they were afraid the prosecution had renigged on the Gentleman's agreement. So they didn't want to risk putting him on the stand and then the prosecution go after him in a way that had him control.
00:18:48
Speaker 2: Right, because there was nothing in writing, There was nothing preventing the prosecution legally from going after Carmelo Anthony about his past statements, his texts, this issue with his girlfriend. So yes, there was too much of a concern that they couldn't trust the prosecutors on this gentleman's deal, even though they had clearly upheld their side of it. They did not go after Austin Metcalf. They did not go after what they knew about this young man. And you know that's always a little bit risky anyway when you're a defense attorney to attack the victim. So look, they had upheld theirs, but they had no way of knowing for sure whether or not prosecutors would uphold their end up things.
00:19:27
Speaker 3: So the only.
00:19:30
Speaker 2: Play they felt they had was to not put Carmelo Anthony up on the.
00:19:34
Speaker 1: Stand, and this new team is now using that to say he was denied a fair trial. He was denied a full defense because he wanted to testify in his own own defense and his stupid deal didn't allow him to do so that is a big part of the argument they're making. See how that one flies. And we're hearing this, it sounds nuts to us, Rodes, it sounds the hell we were just talking about Twop and the deal that was made all those twenty years ago. They've known who killed Tupac, but they made a deal with some guy and they couldn't prosecute him. Okay, this is one of those things, Robes, that this deal behind the scenes of what's going on. Yo, knew all this and decided not to say an Again, the judge himself expressed shock, Like he said it, Robes, I have never been a part of a murder case where there were this many off the record deals that were floating around. Wow, so rob this is extraordinary. So no, folks, this is not normal.
00:20:32
Speaker 2: Yes, And when the judge says that that is a big deal because he knows more than most what types of back room deals happen in so many cases, especially high stakes cases. This sort of thing happens. The idea of this happening happens. But the extent to which it happened, and the extent and the amount of evidence that was kept from that courtroom kept from the jury, that is remarkable. And the question is should it be grounds for a new trial?
00:21:06
Speaker 1: We shall see. This will continue today. I believe Robes. Today is expected to be the only other day of it, so Thursday and Friday, and when the judge makes a decision, I don't think it's going to be immediate. I'm not sure when we're going to hear this, but ro this is a big deal. Two days he is going to wrap up making his argument for possibly getting a new trial.
00:21:24
Speaker 2: And you know, you rarely see a situation in which a defendant that has just been convicted and sentenced to an extended period of time immediately have a hearing like this. And we'll see very quickly if a new trial is granted. If it is, this is extraordinary.
00:21:40
Speaker 1: In Robes, we're going to have to go through this all. I wish this stuff had been out, we got it all out of the way once Roges, this is going to be an incredibly intense and ugly fight, public fight.
00:21:51
Speaker 2: You have a lot of racial lines in the state of Texas.
00:21:55
Speaker 1: Right, say it out loud. There is a black kid that would be quick to label a thug. There's a white kid who's the victim who actually got in trouble for spray painting the inward onto walls. What are we supposed to do? What are you supposed to do? What's fair? What's right? We should just have better conversations, Rose, Will you just commit to that? Yep?
00:22:20
Speaker 3: All right, and well we can hope for that.
00:22:22
Speaker 2: We'll see what happens, but we will of course be following. No, but if look at conversations, actual conversations and not heated confrontations can take place, at least in some groups, at least we can continue to talk when we haven't and instead of becoming violent, maybe we can just have understanding.
00:22:44
Speaker 3: Let's let's hope and end on that. With that, everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Roebuck alongside T. J. Holmes. We'll talk soon.