Karmelo Anthony Trial Judge SPEAKS OUT and Reveals Inside Details, with Eiglarsh, Aronberg, Branca

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Carmelo Anthony, the now 19 year old man in Texas who was just convicted of murdering Austin Metcalfe for no reason in a tent at a track meet, is now, well, saying that he's penniless and he needs a court appointed lawyer to represent him on appeal. And at the same time, Mark Iglars, the judge is speaking out. The judge gave an interview. You never see this. It's so rare. But the judge gave an interview. And among the things that he spoke out about was why he did not allow cameras in the courtroom. It's kind of interesting. Sat 35. [00:00:37] Speaker 2: We'll tell you, I got some reports of some things that were coming out of this courtroom and I wondered to myself, were they even in the same courtroom that I was? It's that bad. And I think that's tragic because I think really if you just listen to the case based upon the facts, you'd understand it so much better. [00:00:52] Speaker 3: Do you think it reinforced your decision to not have cameras or streaming inside this? [00:00:58] Speaker 2: Sort of. I will tell you this. Sometimes I think maybe I should have at least the audio streamed or something so people could hear it. But at the end of the day, I don't think no matter what, people are going to distort whatever happens or whatever they hear into their own agenda. And so what's the point? [00:01:15] Speaker 1: That was Collin County District Judge John Roach interviewing with WFAA, the Dallas ABC affiliate. So I don't know, Mark. I agree. At least audio would have been quite helpful. [00:01:27] Speaker 4: Absolutely. He asked, what's the point? The point is at least there's people like me and the two other guests who would have said, no, that's not accurate what you're saying. We saw the testimony and we could say there's no way that occurred. We were in the dark. And so now we're reliant upon, I'll use air quotes, media entities who are telling us what's going on inside the courtroom. So, no, I think that he is actually reconsidering his decision. I think if he stayed on the bench and I think he's gone soon, he would probably allow cameras and likely, you know, that would change the energy of this whole thing. There were such distortions during this case. People claiming he knew the Metcalfs when he didn't. Like, you've got to have more disclosure for the public. [00:02:17] Speaker 1: You know, this is your business, Andrew. You're an expert in self-defense. And that's what this case was all about, right? I think he was just defending himself. I know, right, exactly. He purported to make it such when he plunged a knife into Austin Metcalf for literally just laying a hand on him. Now, you've seen the reaction in the wake of this verdict where some very bizarre collective of far leftists is trying to say this was self-defense, black boys have boundaries, and Austin Metcalf found out the hard way. I'm not sure loons like that could have been persuaded if they had had a camera in the courtroom watching black witnesses, one after the other, testify that Carmelo Anthony was in the wrong. They saw the whole thing, but it couldn't have hurt. [00:03:05] Speaker 5: Well, the judge says people are going to make up lies about the case anyway, and that's true, of course. I mean, the Zimmerman trial, everyone, there's tons of lies about that, the Rittenhouse trial. The difference is we were able to watch. I watched every minute of both those trials. So when the lies are put out there, as they inevitably are, you can have a credible, informed counter-argument, the truth, to contest those lies. This judge stripped that possibility away. I mean, as my colleague says, now we have to rely on journalists. Frankly, journalists often have their own agenda. They're trying to spin their own narrative. But even when they're being honest, they're not lawyers. They don't know what they're not seeing. They don't know what's important. I kept looking for reporting on, you know, was this subjected to, was this preserved for appeal? And it's just not in the reporting. So we don't know. And because we can't have an actually substantively informed view about the proceedings, we see these lies on the Internet, or at least we suspect they're lies because they're so outrageous. But there's no informed counter-argument. It was terrible what this judge did. And he could have protected those minors just by panning the camera away from their face, and we just would have gotten the audio. [00:04:14] Speaker 1: Yes, very good point. We've seen that done in many trials, and he chose not to do it. Now there's always going to be this question about whether there was some critical failure to prove that this was, you know, went down as we thought it did. Here he is, Dave, on a subject that we've been discussing, which is the absence of any black jurors. There were minorities, but there were no black jurors. And here is what he said on Sat 38. [00:04:42] Speaker 2: Like I told you before, as long as I follow the law, I sleep well at night. And I'm telling you, I follow the law in that case. Did I know what the perception was going to be? Sure. I knew in the back of my mind what the perception was going to be. But I'm not here to satisfy perceptions. I'm not here to satisfy agendas. I'm not here to do any of those things. I'm here to follow the law. And I did it to a T. And I'm proud of that. Very proud of that. [00:05:11] Speaker 1: Good for him. I mean, it's going to be the appellate issue, that and effective assistance, don't you think? [00:05:16] Speaker 6: Yes. But that's why we needed transparency and cameras in the courtroom, because now you have the public saying, well, you intentionally struck black jurors. This is an unfair trial. And that is terrible because you want the community to buy into it. And because there is no transparency here, now they just believe the worst. And there is no set quote on how many members of certain groups have to be on a jury. You just have to have a fair process. And if someone gave an answer in jury selection that gets them struck, as long as they're not being struck because of race, then it's a legitimate system. And it's very unlikely to be overturned on appeal. In fact, judges get a lot of discretion when it comes to jury selection here. And so I think that even though they'll use that on appeal, it's unlikely to overturn this verdict. [00:06:03] Speaker 1: Mark, there's this guy down in this area in Texas who's affiliated in some way with the parents or was like kind of representing them as a supporter for a while. And his name is Charleston White. And he came out shortly after the verdict and went off on Carmelo Anthony's parents, like flipping against them. Here's what he said. Listen to Stop 42. [00:06:29] Speaker 7: I am removing myself from Carmelo Anthony's case. I am no longer involved with the family. And here's why. I was starting to feel like I was being used for my influence and my connections and resources. When I tell you we raised over $1 million one day, privately, quietly. They wanted to start another GoFundMe. I said, no, I'm not doing the GoFundMe. They wanted to know after we pay for the appeal, will the money go to them? No, the extra money don't go back to you. It goes back to the people who gave it. It don't go to nothing else. The money is for the appeal. His daddy in the way. I don't like weak. I hate weak men. I'd rather stand with a strong daddy like that Mefcap man than his black weak father trying to play victim. You want to get the money, but then disassociate yourself from me? Nigga, I'm here for that boy. I'm here for your son. And if this money don't go directly to your son's appeal, you don't get this money. We sent it back. [00:07:51] Speaker 1: Well, obviously, there's some drama going on behind the scenes there between him and the dad. But my question to you is about these GoFundMe funds, because they raised between $600,000 and $700,000. We know the family then moved into this mansion down in the area where they've been staying pending the trial. And I don't know. I'm going to guess that the lawyer representing Carmelo Anthony was not top shelf based on the performance that we witnessed. I don't think he's charging Mark Eichlarsh fees. But my question is simply, if the parents took the Give, Send, Go money and spent it on themselves in some sort of lavish spending spree, I don't have proof of that. But if they did, this guy seems to be intimating they were money hungry for themselves. Is it is there any way of getting it back? Is there any way of Carmelo Anthony suing the parents? Give, Send, Go? What? Yeah. How can that? [00:08:49] Speaker 4: I don't think it's going to go anywhere. End up in something more just. Yeah, it's not going to go anywhere because this really bothered me. I don't know. I was told that Anthony had a public defender and that no one spent the money on a good lawyer. So this is a private lawyer that he had. [00:09:03] Speaker 1: He's not. He used to be. He used to be a public defender. [00:09:06] Speaker ?: Well, I'll tell you this. [00:09:06] Speaker 1: He made so many mistakes. And now he's in private practice. [00:09:07] Speaker 4: He made so many mistakes in that trial. Clearly, they didn't go top shelf. Right? So I read the language that was posted on that. It's not GoFundMe. It's something else. But something like that. Give, Send, Go. Yeah, whatever. And the language is so broad. It includes moving the family for their safety. And so technically, that means what? Moving them. So buying them a home. In other words, they would survive a fraud accusation legally. But I think they were intellectually dishonest. I think that most people who donated their money wanted this guy to get the best defense possible and for the bulk of the money to go for that. And it didn't. [00:09:50] Speaker 1: Thanks for watching this clip. If you're new here, subscribe. We got a whole lot more goodness where that came from. Would love to hear your feedback. You can email me to Megan, M-E-G-Y-N, at MeganKelley.com. Or just leave a comment below. But join the community by becoming a subscriber. We really, really value your input and your support. We may not always agree, but we are always going to talk about it and respect. No BS, no agenda, no fear. Think about this. In 2006, $20,000 equaled roughly 33 ounces of gold at spot price. At today's prices, those 33 ounces would be worth about $165,000. That's why many smart Americans diversify a portion of their savings into precious metals. And that's why you should consider buying gold from Birch Gold Group. For thousands of years, gold has been a store of wealth. And today, it's a crucial part of any balance strategy. Even better, Birch Gold can help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered retirement account in gold. Just text MK to the number 989898 to receive your free info kit on gold. There's no obligation, just useful information. With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers, let Birch Gold help you diversify with gold. Now that's peace of mind. Again, text MK to 989898 today.