Criminal Defense Attorney Reacts to Karmelo Anthony Verdict

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: All right. So we got a verdict not too long ago in this Carmelo Anthony murder case. And I take no delight in saying that, you know, we were accurate with the prediction. Some people called it Captain Obvious in terms of my analysis from the prior video, but this was a relatively straightforward case when you think about it. And, you know, I just actually got home. It's my birthday. I wanted to go out for a birthday run and walk. I'm on a personal mission to get down to 10% body fat by the end of July. So you can keep me in check on that. But yeah, if you've watched some of my content before, thanks so much for returning. If you haven't, my name is Jamal Kersey. I'm a criminal defense attorney in San Diego, California. I've been practicing law for over 17 years. And on this channel, we're breaking down legal concepts. So you're in the know. So yeah, Carmelo Anthony verdict came down relatively quickly. We had closing arguments this morning and the jury came back after not deliberating for that long. And that is not much of a surprise. I think, you know, they're obviously going to take the time to make sure that they get it right. But I think the decision was relatively easy for them to reach. And so that brings up something I wanted to talk about in terms of murder versus manslaughter, because it turned out that that was one of the jury instructions that was ultimately requested. So one of the things that happens after the evidence is presented in a trial, the parties, so the defense and the prosecution are going to sit in the either the judges chambers or an open court and go back and forth regarding the jury instructions. So after closing arguments, the judge then reads the jury instructions to the jury, right? So they got all of the evidence during the trial, and now they're going to get the jury instructions, which is the law that they're going to apply to the facts and ultimately make a decision as to whether the prosecution met their burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So obviously, Carmelo Anthony was being charged with murder. But as the evidence played out, it appeared that manslaughter could arguably be applicable as well. And so it's instructive or useful to get into the differences between murder versus manslaughter. So with murder, you are intentionally killing someone else, right? So you're taking an act with intent to take someone else's life. So, you know, put a gun to someone's head, you pull the trigger, there's no argument whatsoever that you were intentionally killing that person. In a manslaughter situation, you are acting with conscious disregard for the risk involved. So it's reckless behavior. So that's the main thing, you either acting intentional, right, you are intentionally killing somebody, or you're doing something so reckless, that you are consciously disregarding the person's life. And so then whatever reckless action you took, that result in the loss of life, that would be manslaughter versus the intentional killing and murder. And so that may have been what the defense was going for at that point. You know, it's interesting, because a lot of times when it comes to a quote unquote, victory, people will generally get caught up in conviction versus no conviction. But sometimes the facts are the case that a conviction is inevitable, right? So, you know, the defense is not if they're being honest with their client, you're not going into a conversation thinking or giving them any impression that they're going to get off completely in the case, you're going to be convicted of something. But the win is to be made in if we can avoid you being convicted of this, where your exposure is potentially life or a number of years in prison, and we can get you, you know, where you're only convicted of something that could be just probation or, you know, where you can arguably get credit for time served or something like that. Or even it could be where, you know, you might be facing 10 years, and we can get you five years, right? Like if I've shaved five years off of your sentence, then that is a victory, even though you suffered a conviction, right? So depending on, you know, how the conversations went between Carmelo Anthony and his lawyer and, you know, obviously his parents, he's a young man, so the parents were presumably involved in these discussions, they may have said, hey, you know, self-defense, even though we're going to put it on as a self-defense case, you know, we just don't have enough. There's no way we're going to be able to convince a jury that Carmelo was acting in self-defense and that his pulling out a knife and stabbing Austin Metcalf was justified. So they might have been going for, let's say, the next best thing, which would be to avoid a murder conviction and get a manslaughter conviction instead. I don't know if that was a discussion, but it's possible that it was. And so that certainly would have been a victory of sorts if they managed to avoid a murder conviction and, you know, get manslaughter instead, but that, you know, obviously didn't happen. And so there was the self-defense theory that, you know, pretty much was the theme throughout the defense's case from what I understand. And, you know, there were a lot of people in the comments section in my previous videos saying that, well, you know, Austin had no business putting his hands on Carmelo, you know, Austin could have called a teacher or a coach. And I do agree with that, right? The moment, you know, whether Carmelo should have been under the tent or should not have been, that was up for debate. Was he invited by Eddie? You know, what was his relationship with Eddie? It sounds like, you know, they were, you know, they were in contact with each other or associated with each other by way of, you know, an ex-girlfriend, but they weren't really directly friends. But apparently they were, you know, they knew each other enough to where, you know, they would acknowledge each other. And, and he, you know, Carmelo was talking to Eddie under the tent for a moment, but it appears that at a certain point, he was no longer welcome under the tent and he's asked to leave and he's not leaving. He's being non-responsive. And, you know, the, the confrontation starts out relatively calm, but then escalates to aggression. And, you know, when it got to that point, it should have been whether on Austin, because he was the captain of the team and kind of a leader under the tent, you know, whether it should have been him or another student to go and get a coach to say, Hey, you know, this kid from another school won't leave. We need help getting him out. That would have obviously been a much better look than Austin putting his hands on Carmelo. Austin was wrong to put his hands on Carmelo, whether the touch on the shoulder, whether the push, he had no business putting his hands on Carmelo. However, the problem was that Carmelo responded with deadly force in a situation where there was no objective evidence that would indicate that there was imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. And so therefore his use of deadly force was simply unjustified. And that really would be a very easy decision for the jury to ultimately decide. So then that leads to whether Carmelo could have helped his case any by taking the stand. This was another thing that came up in the comment section as to whether he should have taken the stand. What would have happened if he had taken the stand? Could he have helped his case if he took the stand? And I think the answer is no. I think the defense, you know, just reading between the lines on the situation. If Carmelo Anthony, if his version of the events were such that he could have potentially moved the needle on persuading the judges or persuading the jurors that his life was in danger or that he reasonably believed his life was in danger. I absolutely believe that the defense would have put him on. And, you know, you actually have two different camps when it comes to the issue of whether you put your client on the stand. I'd say probably most people say never put your client on the stand unless you have to. I am of the camp in the belief of always put your client on unless you cannot. And I would just say just me personally, I think that when you take the stance of never put your client on unless you have to. To me, that just seems like a fearful approach to trial work. And I really, you know, when I have my defenses and I work them up, I really believe in my defenses. I really go all in on my defenses. I try and do my best to prepare our defenses such that, you know, we're accounting for all the difficult things that are coming, that are going to come up on cross-examination. We're prepared for them. We attack issues head on. If there's any issues that might call into question, my client's credibility will attack those head on. Like if they lied to law enforcement, I might even lead with that. Right. So, you know, right after we get into, you know, you know, what's your name and maybe what you do for a living. Hey, did you sit down with law enforcement? Yes. Were you completely honest with law enforcement when you talked to them? No, I was not. All right. Well, I want to talk to you about, you know, what you lied about? What did you lie about? And then boom, we get it out there. And now we've taken the sting out of it because if you just, if you just ignore it, you can best believe that the prosecution is really going to hammer on it. And it looks way worse than you taking on that issue head on. So I definitely, um, and, and I have gone, I've gone to trial on a murder case, my client facing life in prison. I put them on the stand. We, we, you know, deployed that strategy and now, you know, he, you know, it's still work hours. He's, you know, probably at work and he's loving, uh, being at home with his family and his new wife. I actually went to his wedding. Um, so, you know, I, I don't just talk this, I live this. And so, yeah, um, by putting Carmelo on the stand, I just don't think, uh, it would have been very useful for the defense. I think he would have been absolutely eviscerated on the stand. Uh, the prosecution would have gone into him having the knife, it being in that open position versus, uh, you know, the blade being tucked in. Um, you know, the, he, the, the prosecution really would have harped on, um, just the lack of, uh, aggression, right. You know, there, there not being anything that would have justified the use of deadly force, you know, just being pushed, even if being pushed pretty harshly is not going to give you license to then, you know, pull out a knife and stab somebody. So, uh, you know, it, it seems very clear why the defense, uh, did not have him, uh, take the stand. And, you know, I, I don't know that I would have had him take the stand either in that situation. Um, a lot was said about the defense attorneys and lack of aggression. There's a few things. Um, it could be personality, right. You know, we all have our different styles and it's really important that you be who you are. I guess that's just in life, right. Just be who you are. Don't try and be anybody else. Um, if you're trying to be somebody else, you know, you know, you're robbing the world of the gift that is you. But when it comes to trial work, it's almost like, um, you know, music. I'm a, I'm a huge hip hop head. Uh, everybody knows that. Um, in the nineties, there were so many different styles, right. Whether you had, you know, Biggie or you had the Wu-Tang Clan, which had, you know, nine members, all of whom had nine different styles. You had the Fugees and you had, you know, brand newbie and you had to try called quest. You had outcasts and they all had different styles. And that was such a beautiful thing. Whereas now so much music sounds, you know, the same, right. It seems so cookie cutter and I don't want to get too deep into that rabbit hole. But my point is, you know, everybody's got to play into their own style musically, artistically, and as a trial lawyer. And if it's just not in your personality to be aggressive, then if you try and come off as aggressive or you try and do things that somebody with a more aggressive personality as a trial lawyer does, then it's going to come off as inauthentic and a jury just is not going to believe you. Um, the jury has to believe you. They have to find you credible. They have to find you authentic. And so, um, it could have been that, right? It just may not have been the defense attorney's style to be aggressive. But one other thing that you have to take into consideration is the deference that needs to be given in a case like this. At the end of the day, a 17 year old boy lost his life in a very brutal manner. And, you know, the, the testimony when it comes out about the cause of death and the manner of death, that is so gut wrenching, gut wrenchingly heartbreaking. It's, it's never, um, you know, it's never easy to sit through even as defense counsel, you know, you know, I'm a defense attorney. I've been doing this for 17 years and it can still be difficult to, you know, listen to the testimony on how a person died. Right. You know, I, I, I believe in live and let live and peace and harmony and love and all that. I'm on a, on a very positive vibe in life. And, you know, I don't like to hear about people dying. Obviously I'm going to zealously advocate for my client and give them their, you know, best defense, but you know, it's, it's just not something that you love hearing. And so to be a defense attorney and try and, you know, bulldoze your way through a trial and a, and a defense like, you know, that that's a surefire way to have the jury, uh, turn on you. But the other part of it is, you know, in order for you to be aggressive, you have to have something to argue about to be aggressive over. Right. And, and so, you know, they just didn't really seem to have much of a defense there. So there really wasn't much to be aggressive about. And, you know, on that note, at least in terms of my style, I am very respectful of the other side in a trial. I'm respectful of the prosecutors definitely show respect to the judge or the court staff and everything, but also to the, you know, opposing witnesses, right. You know, I'm not disrespectful to witnesses. In fact, I, I represented a client on a child molestation case. And, um, you know, that was a very difficult case and, uh, the very emotional testimony. And, um, interestingly enough, uh, years after I did that case, um, I ran into one of the jurors in the locker room and, um, and I recognized him and he recognized me and we talked, um, um, and he just commented on, you know, how respectful and nice I was to the, uh, the victims in that case. And, you know, I, I obviously have a job to do and I was zealously advocating for my client, but that doesn't mean, you know, zealously advocating for your client, um, passionately advocating for your client doesn't mean you have to be disrespectful or mean to witnesses in order to get your points across or, you know, to, uh, establish what you need to establish on cross-examination. And so, so yeah, there, there are a number of reasons why, um, the defense attorneys may not have been as, you know, say aggressive as people may have wanted them to be, but, um, you know, there's some insight on that. One of the other issues that came up was, um, why wasn't some sort of deal reached, right? So we all know that plea bargains exist, right? And so just generally speaking, um, really a small percentage of cases make it to trial. I know all day, every day you turn on the news, you're going to see, um, a different trial on the law and crime network on your local news. There's always criminal cases going on, but relatively small, um, a small percentage of cases actually go to trial. So 90 plus percent of cases do not go to trial. A small percentage of cases, you know, say maybe one to 3% get dismissed, maybe, uh, another three or 4% go to trial and then the rest are resolved by way of a plea deal. And it has to be that way because if every case went to trial or even, uh, many more, uh, went to trial, then, you know, the whole system would grind to a halt. We just would not have enough courtrooms, enough court staff, enough resources for all these cases to go to trial. And quite frankly, um, you know, most cases have no business going to trial, right? If a person is clearly guilty, then, you know, it makes more sense to negotiate a deal than to put on a case for the inevitable result of your client being convicted. And so generally speaking, the prosecutor in any case is going to make an offer to the defense, which generally speaking is going to be more favorable than if you were to go through trial, get convicted and then get sentenced after trial, right? So, so as an incentive, um, you know, that's what encourages people to take deals because they know, Hey, if I, if I just admit guilt, I know I did something right. It may not be to the extent of what I'm charged with, but I did something wrong. If I take this deal, I'm going to get less time or potentially no time versus if I go to trial and I get found guilty, I could go to prison or I could get jail or what have you. Right. Um, but there are some cases where deals simply are not made. Right. Um, and murder cases is one of those in murder cases. A lot of times, uh, the DA is not going to make any offer at all. It is on the defense. If they so choose to make an offer to the district attorney, and then they can either reject that offer or make a counter offer or accept the offer. And so I don't know, you know, we'll, we'll never know whether, uh, the defense actually made any sort of offer to, uh, the district attorney to settle the case. Probably not. Um, just because, you know, you have a young man who was only 17 at the time of the incident. He's got his whole life ahead of him. The prosecution clearly believed that this was a murder and the jury now has supported that with their verdict. Um, so in order for them to entertain any sort of deal, it would have had to have been an offer that would be in the neighborhood of probably at least, I would say at a minimum 20 years, probably closer to 25 or 30 years. And so to, you know, sit down with your client and their family and say, Hey, we, you know, we're going to sign you up for a 25, 30 year deal, you know, at 18, 19 years old, that just is not realistic. And so, um, but anything, any offer less than that just would not be accepted by the district attorney. And that kind of, you know, to, to help you understand, uh, negotiations a bit more, the way that you assess and analyze whether a deal or an offer makes sense is by basically projecting out what the case is going to look like in front of a jury, right? As you can kind of figure how the evidence is going to come off the strength of the, the evidence, the strength of the witnesses and the like, the stronger the prosecution believes its case to be, the less flexible they're going to be in negotiations. Um, whereas if they have witness issues, if there might be evidentiary issues, or if it's just a, you know, a thin case, it's not that strong of a case, the prosecution might be more, um, agreeable or more amenable to, uh, flexible negotiations. But in this case where the prosecution not only believes their case is rock solid and rightfully so, and, uh, you know, they're also accountable to, um, you know, the victim's families, right? Um, you know, they, they, at least in California, the prosecution, um, they have to run any proposed offer by the, uh, the, the alleged victim's family or the alleged victim, if they're still alive and get their take on it. They'll also ask, Hey, you know, what do you think is inappropriate punishment? And while the decision is ultimately the district attorneys to make, they definitely take into consideration the victim's stance on, uh, the matter. But, uh, that, that just explains why a deal wasn't reached and why, you know, the case ultimately had to go to trial. And, and one thing to bear in mind is sometimes, you know, you know, at the end of the day, the trial process, um, you know, it's probably one of the fairest, if not the fairest in the world, it has its shortcomings for certain, but, uh, it is a, a pretty fair process. We really do everything that we can to get it right. And, you know, when the government says that you did something right, um, the, the, the fascinating, fascinatingly wonderful thing about being in the United States is that we have a right to a trial in front of a jury, right? Before we had jury trials, um, the government could just say, Hey, you did this. And if they said you did it, then you did it. And that's that. Now we have, you know, you get a jury of your peers to listen to the evidence. They have, you know, there's a whole selection process to make sure that they can be fair and impartial. And they listen to the evidence, they get the law and they ultimately make a decision whether the government proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is the function of the jury trial. And so sometimes when you have a set of facts where, um, you know, there just is not going to be a, a, an agreement reached. So those are the cases that go to trial, right? Cases go to trial when the defense and the prosecution simply cannot come to an agreement as to how the case should be resolved. And so that means that the case ends up going before the jury in order to determine, Hey, did the prosecution, have they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did what they're being charged with? And sometimes there's a defense to be presented. And sometimes there's not really a defense because the person did what they're alleged to have done. So the defense is kind of, you know, raising certain issues that might lead to reasonable doubt and may not lead to reasonable doubt. And clearly in this situation, you know, there wasn't anything there that would, uh, you know, cause any sort of reasonable doubt, um, as to whether Carmelo actually murdered, uh, Austin Metcalf. And so that's why they, they, they reached the decision that they reached. So, um, I think that's a good place to leave off, but, um, you know, let me know your thoughts. Did the verdict turn out the way you thought it would? Um, do you have any other questions? If you do, um, there was really good questions in the last video. So, um, you know, I'll try and get to as many as I can. Um, but you know, I definitely want to thank you for your support, especially if you made it this far. Um, and if you did and you got something out of it, show me some love, hit that like button, make sure you subscribe to the channel and turn on those notifications. So you never miss a new video when it drops. As always, I want to thank you so much for watching and until next time, peace.