Karmelo Anthony Verdict - GUILTY of Murder - Instant Reaction and Analysis

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: We're going live today at 3.05 Eastern time because there is a verdict in the Carmelo Anthony case and we are about to receive it. We're told to expect it around 2.05 Central time, which is right now. There are no cameras inside of this courtroom, so no one has any camera feeds. We are just awaiting news from inside the courtroom where it will be relayed as soon as the jury issues their verdict. It only took three hours for them to come to a conclusion and, you know, you never know what a jury is going to do. So, you know, it's sort of a fool's errand to go and try to predict them, but whatever, I'll do it anyway. There's just no chance in my mind that they are not going to find him guilty, Carmelo Anthony. I, you know, could be wrong. Juries sometimes do surprising things, but I will be shocked, shocked if this is anything other than guilty. On the murder count, as we discussed on our Sirius XM show earlier, they added a manslaughter charge today and that could change things considerably for the better for Carmelo Anthony because it would be much better for him to be found guilty of that than of murder. But there is not evidence of manslaughter in this case. There is only evidence of murder. And the manslaughter charge, if that's what they consider and find him, you know, guilty on, I think would just be either a compromise verdict because they had, you know, a disagreement on the jury, or they just felt sorry for Carmelo Anthony because he's a 17-year-old who reportedly has not been in trouble with law prior to this and didn't want to put a 17-year-old in jail for murder. That it would have to be that. But I'm sorry. That's what he did. That's what he committed. This was murder. It was premeditated murder. He went into that tent on the Frisco grounds for this high school track meet. He meandered into the wrong tent intentionally. He knew he was not supposed to be there. It would be the equivalent of, you know, we're watching the basketball series in New York here. You know, the Spurs don't go sit on the Knicks bench. You don't go over into opposing team's territory in the middle of a sporting event in which you are competitors. Everyone knows that. He was doing something intentionally provocative, and he knew it. He was told by multiple kids who were in the tent, get out. You need to leave. They weren't quite as rude as I just put it. And he wouldn't. He knew he was there to stir something up. Why would he go into a rival team's tent with a knife in his bag? I'm sorry, but it looks very much like this kid had some dastardly deed on his mind. And it could have been Austin Metcalf, could have been Hunter Metcalf, could have been anybody. But he set himself up for this entire event. And he never testified. So we didn't even get to hear from him. They didn't do the jury the courtesy of having him explain his self-defense defense. Of course, the defendant has a Fifth Amendment right not to testify. But when you are alleging you're not guilty because it was self-defense, it's extremely rare not to put the defendant on the stand. And it's not like they had some amazing eyewitness who was right next to him who could testify. Austin attacked him. Austin punched him in the face. Austin had him by the neck, therefore vitiating the need for Carmelo Anthony to actually give testimony. That didn't happen. The defense witnesses, by all accounts, were weak, didn't really see much, didn't have eyes on the tent, or came in too late to really be of much help. So it's a very interesting question why they didn't put him on the stand. Obviously, they did not believe he'd make a good witness, and one wonders why. What was it that they saw on the defense team that led them to that conclusion? It's 3.09. We are continuing to await word from the jury that is in. For those of you just joining us, we've just gone live on YouTube on the Carmelo Anthony verdict, which is in. It has not yet been read or announced, but it is in. The jury has reached a verdict three hours after they were given the case. We've got some of our Kelly's Court team here on standby who are going to come in and talk to us about this as we await the verdict and then for reaction afterward. They include Phil Holloway and Mark Eichlarsch. Both handle not only civil cases, but criminal cases as well, including criminal defense. And, you know, Phil, we featured some commentary from you in our AM Update podcast this morning on the oddity of Carmelo Anthony not taking the stand. I mean, we're all just reading tea leaves here, but what do you think a three-hour deliberation period tells us? [00:05:07] Speaker 2: His goose is cooked, Megan. Three hours means that the jury was not hung. They didn't have any questions. My concern that I expressed that there could potentially be the issue of a stealth juror trying to sneak on the jury. I expressed that in your AM Update that you just referenced. It doesn't look like that happened. It looks like the jury was united. Three hours is very short, which means they didn't really have a whole lot to talk about. They all probably were pretty much on the same page. We did learn today that there was a jury instruction. The judge gave the jury the option of choosing manslaughter versus murder. Now, I suppose it's possible we could hear a manslaughter verdict, although I think that's very unlikely. The evidence in this case did not show any sudden provocation by the alleged victim or anything like that that would be sufficient to warrant manslaughter. It didn't reach any of the other, I think, legal benchmarks for a manslaughter verdict. Sometimes judges give those when they are requested by the defense sort of out of an abundance of caution. But I seem to think that this quick verdict, combined with the fact that there are no real questions, no questions at all that we know of, tells me the jury was a cohesive unit. They're united. They are unanimous. And I think that it means that Carmelo Anthony is about to be convicted of first-degree murder and spend the rest of his life in prison. [00:06:41] Speaker 1: Mark, can you talk about the difference between manslaughter and murder and, you know, why it was significant that they added the manslaughter count as an option for the juror today, for the jury? [00:06:53] Speaker 3: Yeah, I would have had them add that if I was representing him. And I also wouldn't put him near the stand. So I disagree with anybody who said that they should have put him on the witness stand. He would have been eviscerated. Even if the verdict is adverse, which I expect it to be adverse, you don't, he would have been destroyed on the witness stand. So they needed to make the argument that this was self-defense and see if the jurors buy it. And I don't think that they did. The question is whether it should have been manslaughter versus murder. And I think there's a strong argument to be made there. Murder, we all know, requires intent. He wanted to kill him. I read the statute in Texas. It appears it mirrors what we have here. And that is a reckless act, an indifference to human life. So he did the act of stabbing the victim, but didn't intend necessarily to kill him. He didn't intend not to kill him. It was a reckless indifference. And I think that that's the strongest argument. Now, I don't know. You got a Texas jury and not many people are talking about this. But we do know that the law precludes either side from getting rid of jurors based upon the color of their skin. That's an issue so much so that the law had to be created to stop attorneys from doing this. In this particular case, the prosecutor struck the three potential black jurors. And so there are no black jurors seated at all, which I'm merely saying increases the chances of the prosecution getting what they want. [00:08:26] Speaker 1: I mean, the question here is whether this jury is going to look at Carmelo Anthony at 17 years old and say, I'm not finding him guilty of murder. I'm not doing that. Manslaughter is a reasonable alternative. And I mean, I can see not to be sexist about it, Phil, but I could see women, mothers in particular, possibly veering that way because he is so young. And there's been no evidence that he's some sort of career criminal. [00:08:57] Speaker 2: You know, I actually had that in a case once where a jury reached a compromise verdict because there was a, the evidence when I was a prosecutor, the evidence of this person's guilt, it was an armed robbery case. But the evidence was overwhelming and the defendants were all very young. In fact, this particular one, we severed the trials was 17 years old and a mother basically ran out of the jury room, fell to her knees and started sobbing, saying that she felt so terrible about basically sending a teenage boy to prison. So, yes, your, your point is valid. People think about the effect of their verdict. They're not supposed to actually know. In other words, the, the sentencing aspect is really not supposed to be part of the case in chief, but jurors are not stupid. They know what happens to people they convict of serious crimes like armed robbery and murder. So, yeah, I mean, that, that could happen. I do think it's rare, Megan. I think that it's unlikely that there's, there's going to be any of that sort of hesitation. I think that the jury is going to dismiss out of hand the manslaughter option. I think they're going to focus on all of the testimony. And look, there were witnesses just recently, as recently as yesterday. And I post about this on my ex account. There were witnesses for the defense who on cross-examination admitted that Carmelo Anthony was in the wrong and he was the aggressor. So this whole thing from beginning to end, when you take the defense witnesses, just to reiterate, the state's witnesses did a good job for the state. But the defense witnesses also did a good job for the state because on cross-examination, a lot of times they just admitted that, yeah, Carmelo Anthony was, was in the wrong. And in other cases, the prosecutor did a good job of pointing out that the witnesses were not in a position physically to see the events that they were in court trying to testify for. So I honestly scratched my head wondering if maybe some of this money that was raised during the Go, Go, what was it, Give, Send, Go fundraiser? It's almost $700,000 now. It seems like maybe some of that money should have been spent perhaps on hiring additional attorneys or people who could go and investigate and interview these witnesses for the defense so that they would know what they were going to say in court. Because it seems to me like the defense team was entirely caught off guard by a lot of the testimony. [00:11:35] Speaker 3: And they can't change the facts, you know. Yeah, go ahead. They just can't change the facts if they had a team of lawyers. I still don't know that the facts change. I don't disagree with either one of you that jurors, in spite of being instructed that sympathy should play no role, they absolutely do consider it. They know the difference between what first-degree murder would yield versus manslaughter, at least in concept. So they do consider that. It wouldn't surprise me if they immediately said manslaughter. And I ask the question to each of you, okay? And I know, Megan, you're pretty entrenched in that position. But, you know, is there at least a possibility in both of your minds, and this is what I would tell the jury, that when he stabbed one time, not repeatedly, not like in the neck area, not by announcing, I'm going to kill you, which would clearly evidence what he's intending to do. But one jab, which, again, is criminal, and I'm not excusing him, but one jab, which happened to land in a really bad place, causing the death, whether he intended to kill him, or was it a reaction after he was pushed? Can I answer first? That's reasonable doubt. It's your show, Megan, but I'd like to answer. [00:12:47] Speaker 1: The mere provocation of it, the mere daring, go ahead, lay hands on me. Not a good fact. He wanted it. [00:12:52] Speaker 3: Agreed. No. [00:12:53] Speaker 1: He was looking for a confrontation, and he showed up there with a knife in his bag, which also suggests he was there to have some sort of confrontation with someone. We don't know that. I don't know. He didn't testify, so we didn't get to testify. We don't know that. [00:13:05] Speaker 2: He intended to do the act. He intended to plunge that knife in his heart. We don't know that, but I can infer it. He may not have intended to kill him, but he intended. He knew he had a deadly weapon in his hand, and he intended to plunge it into his heart. We agree. Therefore, it is murder. So whether he intended to kill is irrelevant. Did he intend to do the act that caused the death? Absolutely he did. [00:13:27] Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that you're conceding my point. I think that if he didn't intend to kill him, that the act itself, which he should be held responsible for, he should be found guilty for sure of manslaughter and maybe even murder. I wasn't there during the trial. But if he didn't intend to kill, but he intended to commit that act and that resulted in a death, then one would argue that that's reckless as a person. You're misdating the standard. No, I think that's murder still, Mark. [00:13:54] Speaker 1: A reckless disregard for human life is enough. That's enough. And that's what he showed by shoving that knife into the heart. [00:14:04] Speaker 2: That's enough for murder. You have to presume that someone, the law actually says you have to presume that someone intends the consequences of their actions. That's a presumption. And so to my knowledge, there's nothing in this case that would overcome that presumption. So, you know, look, I don't think I can, I don't think I'm going to concede your point, Mark. I think that I can concede that that is a possibility. It may be, maybe he didn't intend to kill, but I think he did. I think he intended, I think it's, I'm certain that he intended to do the act. And the law presumes that he intended the consequences of that act. So I don't think there's any way to put this square peg into this legal round hole to come up with a manslaughter. Now, the jury could do it. They could absolutely be some kind of compromise, but it would not be consistent with the law and the facts as I understand them to be. [00:14:58] Speaker 1: Yeah, because you tell me, Phil, but isn't it, when you have a manslaughter case, it's heat of passion. You know, something, it's like the classic is. [00:15:08] Speaker 3: You mean after being shoved? [00:15:09] Speaker 1: The husband, no, that's my whole point. That's not, that's not heat of passion. The classic example is the husband walks in on the wife having sex with someone, not him, and does something to harm one or both of them. Like, that's your instance. Obviously, that's a classic example, sure. That's a manslaughter. That's not what this was. The guy showed up there, by the way, Dave Ehrenberg now joining us. Dave, great to see you, a former Palm Beach County. [00:15:35] Speaker 3: I'm not going to get much help with this prosecutor. There's no way. [00:15:38] Speaker 1: You are definitely not going to get him. You're outnumbered, buddy. That's the classic, there's no heat of passion in him showing up there, Phil, with a knife in his bag, running around, being provocative, saying, go ahead, lay hands on me, see what happens. And then when somebody does, shoving a knife in his heart. [00:15:55] Speaker 2: Yeah, and all that's true. And you can't go and instigate an altercation and claim that it is somehow self-defense. You can't instigate an altercation and escalate an altercation and then try to claim the benefit of a reduced charge because you were the instigator and you showed up with a knife. Whether it's legal to have that knife, by the way, in the state of Texas is not the point. I carry a weapon legally all the time. But if I use that weapon illegally to murder somebody, I'm still guilty of murder. So this whole thing about him legally possessing the knife is a red herring that you heard parroted by lots in the media, by the folks outside the courtroom, and by the defense counsel. So that issue right there is just a complete red herring. But this is not manslaughter. [00:16:47] Speaker 3: Let's address the knife. It troubles me. I would like to know why the hell were you carrying that knife around with you. But what I won't do is what both I think of you are doing, and that is speculate that he had that knife there because he was looking to kill. I will tell you that I currently have a case where my client had a knife on him, and when he was put in a headlock by certain people, he was forced to use his knife. And the question was, why did he have that knife? And he happened to have that knife because he uses that knife for fishing, and it was in his fishing bag, and that's all absolute truth. I don't know. Maybe he carries that knife with him all the time just in case because he's had issues or whatever. I don't know. But to say that he brought the knife there with the intent to plunge it into somebody's heart, Megan, that is not supported by the evidence. [00:17:36] Speaker 2: Mark, are you saying that Carmelo Anthony was a sport fisherman? First of all, no, no, but let me respond. [00:17:40] Speaker 1: Let me respond, Phil. No, I'm not. You're not, silly boy. Come on. First of all, I don't have to prove that if I'm the prosecutor. I do not have to prove that he showed up there with the knife with the intent to kill. I don't have to prove that. So my argument is- But you said it. You could make the argument. Well, you- Okay, fine. Let's stick to what the jury actually has to find in order to reach a murder conclusion of guilty, and that does not require you showed up there with the intent to murder. My point in introducing that was as a prosecutor, I could make that case easily, very easily. I think he did go there, frankly, to kill that day. I do. I believe he showed up in the opposing team's tent. He was intentionally provocative. He dared them to lay hands on him. And I think this kid has a chip on his shoulder. We didn't get evidence because they didn't put him on the stand about why he's so fucking angry. Excuse me. But I think it's because he's got a chip on his shoulder because I've seen his family try to racialize this entire case without any evidence about that. And so this boy obviously grew up in that family, and I'll bet you he's got a fair amount of racial grievance on his shoulders, too. And I also bet you, Mark, because we haven't been told because they keep juvie records sealed, but I'll bet you there is something in his past that we just didn't get to know about because he was a minor. [00:18:50] Speaker 3: So to keep it intellectually honest, I'll concede you may be right. But what also may be right is he didn't show up to kill. He showed up to run a track meet, and it rained, and he was looking for a place to shield himself from the rain, and he saw someone that he recognized. He goes under that tent, and then all of a sudden, the alleged victim says to him things that he found offensive. I'm not justifying his actions, so keep the hate mail. I'm merely saying that it could be consistent with then he gets hit or pushed, as it was testified to, and then he reacts at a minimum manslaughter, maybe murder, but why not manslaughter? That's all I'm saying. Dave, I'm sure you're not going to help me here when you bring in Dave, but, you know, that's all. [00:19:37] Speaker 1: I mean, Dave, you know as well as I do, as well as Mark does and Phil, that even if everything Mark just said is true in that last hypothetical, it's still not manslaughter. You cannot respond to someone laying hands on you, literally just laying hands on you, even if it were a push, which is the best evidence they had. The most aggressive witness for the defense said he shoved him. [00:20:03] Speaker 4: Yeah. [00:20:03] Speaker 1: You cannot respond to a shove with deadly force. I don't disagree, by the way. Period. I don't disagree. [00:20:08] Speaker 4: Go ahead, Dave. So how is it manslaughter then? I mean, like, Megan is right. Manslaughter is reserved for things where you catch your wife in bed with another man, and it's extreme emotional distress. This is not extreme emotional distress. This is a pushing under a tent during the rain, and you pull out a knife and then kill someone is murder. It's not manslaughter. Now, look, if you want to blame people, blame the defendant and his lawyer, because I've never seen, and Mark, maybe you can correct me on this one, I've never seen a claim of self-defense where the defense lawyer doesn't put on the defendant under the stand. I mean, it's like 101. You have to put the defendant on the stand to say that, yes, I was in reasonable fear of my life. He didn't do that. [00:20:51] Speaker 3: Yeah. I don't disagree with you. And by the way, I'm pulling it up. I'm not crazy. I read the statute, okay, so the manslaughter is defined in Texas. A person commits manslaughter if he or she recklessly causes the death of another individual. Was he not reckless as he plunged that knife into an area on this boy after being shoved? Could the jurors make that finding? I think they can. And reckless means the person was aware of, but consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death could occur. He's not an expert in stabbing and killing people. He stabbed this kid and it happened to kill him. Could be the argument. So we're talking about manslaughter. [00:21:39] Speaker 1: It doesn't take an expert to know where someone's heart is. I mean, let's be honest. You're right. That could be. He didn't shove that knife in his stomach, in his leg. [00:21:49] Speaker 2: He had the knife open in the bag and his hand was in the bag. You know, and this was before any alleged putting on of hands occurred. And so, look, I appreciate, always appreciate the zealous advocacy and the arguments, the creative arguments of my colleagues and of my friends and my lawyers who are my buddies around the world, including Mark and Dave. But I think that as creative as that argument is, and maybe it's right, maybe that would have been the only thing you could have argued to the jury. And sometimes as a defense lawyer, you have to just argue the best thing that you have, even when it sucks. And I just think that the facts of this case were terrible for the defense. I would be curious to know if there was ever any contemplation of there being any kind of plea deal. It seems like no. It seems like there was never a plea deal that was offered. I don't know if the defense even asked for one. But in any event, I'd like to say that I feel like maybe the defense team did the best they could out of what they had. But to be honest, what I saw was lawyers that were maybe not quite as prepared as they needed to be, because as I keep going back to this, they just seem to not have prepared their witnesses. It seems like they didn't even talk to them very much ahead of time. Or if they did, maybe they forgot what they were going to say, because there's so many things that happened on the witness stand that just seem inconsistent with what you would have expected out of this defense team. [00:23:24] Speaker 1: So anyway, Phil, let me show you soundbite 12. This is Court TV's Cody Thomas describing the prosecutors versus the defense when it came to the witnesses and witness prep. Listen here, it's not 12. [00:23:40] Speaker 5: And then the defense began their case Saturday afternoon with three witnesses. Of course, there was a couple of students that they called. One thing I thought stood out then, Matt, on this Saturday session was that one of these students, the defense attorney clearly stated that they had not spoken before. He got up there and he asked them, you know, we've only spoken for two minutes right here in the hallway before we came in. So there was no witness prep. And we know that's a huge factor that goes into trials that we cover here at Court TV. And, you know, he's asking this kid questions to which the kid kind of doesn't really have answers to or is kind of negating the narrative that the defense is trying to go down. And then once the prosecution gets up there and cross-examination, the prosecution says, oh, we've talked for more than 10 minutes. In fact, I was texting your father last night, which would have been Friday night. So that was interesting to me that the prosecution seemed to have a better relationship with this defense witness. Yeah, that's insane. [00:24:28] Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what we talked about on the MK True Crime Show today. That is malpractice, and that would cause jurors to quickly find somebody guilty of the main charge rather than consider any alternative when an attorney is that inept and doesn't know what the witness is going to do and how they're going to be eviscerated. That was horrible. [00:24:49] Speaker 2: And folks, if you hadn't checked it out, Dave and I got into this very discussion on today's episode of the MK True Crime Show. And I'm sure we'll come back to it as well once we know what the verdict is. And by the way- [00:25:03] Speaker 1: Just to interrupt you quickly, Phil, just to interrupt you quickly, forgive me, the jurors are entering the courtroom right now. Oh my, oh my. And so the verdict should be read- [00:25:09] Speaker 2: Yeah, and you've seen the crowds going outside the court. It's getting heated outside that courtroom too. Any moment now. [00:25:15] Speaker 1: You know, it's this, the new Black Panthers are there, which is never helpful. [00:25:20] Speaker 3: Was there any testimony at all that race ever came into play in terms of epithet? No. Nothing, right? [00:25:29] Speaker 1: No, no. It's the whole thing. I mean, there are some derelicts on the internet who have introduced race, but the whole thing has been driven by this Dominique Alexander, who is the spokesperson for the Carmelo Anthony family, who continues to try to racialize this case. Yeah. You know, try to say that Austin Metcalfe was a white supremacist, which is a defamatory lie. There is zero evidence of that. He just keeps injecting this because he thinks he's going to nullify the jury and the verdict. And it hasn't, you know, so far that hasn't caught hold and there's been zero evidence of it in court. Here he is. This guy's got a long history of his own involving some very questionable behavior with young children and hurting them. We'll get into it at another time. But that's their family spokesperson. So I'm sorry, Phil. So the jury's filing in. The new Black Panthers are outside. There are protests, as there have been. There are many citizens of the area who we put on camera yesterday who there was a black woman saying, we protect our own. That's what we want. But there are no black jurors here. Now, I don't know, you know, whether there are white jurors who have that same attitude. They did try to flesh out whether there was any racial bias and voir dire for any juror, white or black. And presumably these folks made it because neither the defense nor the prosecution believe that they harbored that kind of animus. Go ahead, Phil. [00:26:54] Speaker 2: Yeah, I was just talking about exactly what you're seeing outside the courthouse in just from a 10,000 foot level. Well, let me just say it makes me sad as a lawyer and someone who's been a criminal justice professional now for about 40 years to see, you know, our justice system breaking down like this to, you know, this faction versus that faction, this racial group versus that racial group. You know, justice should be blind. It should be determined by what happens inside the courtroom with competent, reliable evidence. We have witnesses that are white. We have witnesses that are black. You know, the fact that you've got a jury made up of 12 white individuals is not, doesn't surprise me because it's a majority white jurisdiction as I understand it. Yeah, it's going to happen. And you're not entitled to a jury that looks like you. You're entitled to a representative cross-section of the community. And by the way, there are, were plenty of, okay, standby, standby, uh, the, this, this per [00:27:58] Speaker 1: Fox Dallas, the judge is now on the bench. The judge is warning the court, uh, room against any outbursts. Everyone is now standing. The jury, uh, again, has entered the courtroom already. So we are seconds away from a verdict in the Carmelo Anthony case awaiting the actual readout from the court clerk, um, and the exchange with the jury as, as it happens, standby, hold on, just watching the, for a refresh on my phone as we continue to await. [00:28:30] Speaker 2: Yeah. We're all struggling with looking at the camera versus looking at Twitter on our phone. [00:28:33] Speaker 1: He's been found guilty. Murder. Guilty of murder. You go a Collin County jury has found Carmelo Anthony guilty of murder and the death of Austin Metcalfe were, I mean, no surprise. There was no other, there was no other reasonable choice. There just wasn't Dave Aaron. This, I mean, this is as open and shut as they come. [00:28:52] Speaker 4: This is, and it was the right verdict because when you go to a track meet, you don't end up, you shouldn't end up in a body bag. I mean, you, this was what happened to the days when you'd have school fights and now everyone brings a weapon and it's just ridiculous. And one thing that Phil said that just want to clarify, I don't think the jury was all white in the traditional sense. Apparently there were several Asian jurors. And so there were no black members of the jury. And although that to me is unfortunate because it means that this verdict will not be accepted the way that it should. But as far as on appeal, I don't expect that to be a subject of appeal to be overturned because as Phil correctly says, there's no quota. How many people of different races you have to have on a jury, as long as the procedures were fair, meaning the judge did the right things and everyone, the process played out. That's all. But as far as the evidence, the evidence was just overwhelming. I mean, the fact that the defendant didn't even take the stand tells you enough that they knew that the evidence was going to cook him if he did take the stand too. And they thought they would just roll the dice on just putting the prosecutors to their burden of proof. Well, prosecutors got a quick guilty verdict. [00:29:58] Speaker 1: The issue for me, Carmelo Anthony found guilty. For those of you just joining us, Carmelo Anthony, who was 17 years old when he committed this crime, plunging a knife into the chest of 17 year old Austin Metcalfe for honestly no reason. It was they weren't even having a fight. It was a minor dispute over whether Carmelo should have been in that tent. And just FYI, there are 12 jurors plus six alternates. We don't know exactly which one of these made the jury and which ones are the alternates, but the white woman in her 40s, white man in his 40s, white man in his 20s or 30s, white woman. There is an Asian woman. There's a white or a Hispanic man, a white or Hispanic woman, another Asian, a Hispanic or Indian man, a Middle Eastern woman wearing a head covering, an Indian woman. So you're right, Dave. They're not all white. There are some minorities, but no, no black jurors. [00:30:44] Speaker 3: Megan, the issue for me has always been I always like take the defense's story and I say, let's say it's true. It comes back to proportionality. Let's say everything you're saying is true, but the victim didn't have a weapon. You can't bring a knife to a verbal assault and a pushing fight. The only thing that got bruised was the ego of the offender. And I would argue to the jury, he didn't have to wait for a punch because a punch could have killed him. We know that that could happen. But you know what? Most jurors ain't buying that. They'll think about their own family members having a dispute with someone. And let's say your own family member pushes someone for whatever reason. That shouldn't warrant a death sentence. And I think these jurors, you know, thought that through very quickly and said, yeah, even if we believe what he's saying, we can't do anything other than fine for the most serious charge. [00:31:42] Speaker 1: I mean, what we're hearing now from inside the courtroom, I just want to make sure I have the citation correct. In fact, this is from CBS 11 news reporter, JD Miles, reporting that Carmelo Anthony has broken down in tears. You can hear inside the courtroom. His bond has been extinguished. He's now officially in the custody of the Collin County Sheriff as he has been found guilty of this dastardly crime. Justice was done, Phil Holloway. It's it's unfortunate. It's sad. I really do. As with any crime involving a minor. I do have some blame for the parents. I want to know what happened in that. Why? How did you raise a 17 year old who was this indifferent to the value of human life? [00:32:31] Speaker 2: I say that the human brain doesn't really fully understand the concept of risk and a risky behavior until it matures to about the age of 25 or 26. So anytime we see, you know, young people engaging in this kind of behavior, something caused Carmelo Anthony to make the decision to take this long, I guess, five inch knife into a track meet where it had no business being whether it was legal or not. Somebody or something caused him to make that choice. So did he not understand the risk? And something caused him to escalate a tense situation as well once he came up under that tent and by refusing to leave. And so, yeah, I think there is a component of how people are brought up, what parents teach their children, how parents teach their children to sort of keep themselves out of harm's way, how to not escalate situations. Maybe just walking away and not bowing up and thinking you're Billy Badass is the best way to go. So, yeah, I think there's some real questions about that. But it is sad anytime somebody loses their life. And it's also sad when you have a young person whose terrible, terrible life choices cause them to then essentially lose their life or at least spend the rest of it in prison. [00:33:53] Speaker 1: Yeah, he killed two people. [00:33:54] Speaker 2: Yeah. [00:33:55] Speaker 1: He killed two people. It was a murder-suicide in a way. And he destroyed his family and everything. [00:33:59] Speaker 2: And now we're going to have to deal with all the unrest outside the courthouse. I'm curious, Dave. [00:34:04] Speaker 1: Well, can I ask you guys something? This is just breaking right now. That the court is now going immediately, is the word being used, into the sentencing phase. That's what I was going to ask you about. [00:34:14] Speaker 3: Like, what should he get? Five to ninety-nine years, apparently. [00:34:17] Speaker 1: But can you explain that? Does that mean we're going to get a sentence right away? Yeah, it does. Is that how it works in Texas? [00:34:22] Speaker 3: So that's my question to all of you. To Phil's point, we know, again, not to excuse. Now we're just talking mitigation. He's been found guilty. And there's a wide range of what he could sentence. I was curious to know what the lawman's thought was, the former prosecutor, Dave. If you've got a range of five to ninety-nine years, what is the appropriate sentence? Which is the case. How old is the defendant? Was he seventeen? But wait, wait. [00:34:45] Speaker 1: Before we get to the appropriate sentence, Eichler, let's talk about my question, which is, do you know, Phil or Dave, whether that means immediately into the sentencing phase we should be expecting a sentence right now? [00:34:57] Speaker 2: It sounds like, and I've actually had that. It used to be fairly common, particularly when the law mandates, you know, a life sentence. And in this case, I think Texas law mandates a life sentence. It mandates that he's eligible for parole. Because of his age, death was not an option. So this is like the only possible sentence. [00:35:15] Speaker 1: It mandates five to ninety-nine. So I don't think it is a—it doesn't mandate a life sentence, but it's—I mean, it would be effectively—it effectively would be one if he gets a ninety-nine-year sentence. [00:35:26] Speaker 2: Well, we can double-check that. I had maybe misread that. But in any event, it's—what I had read was it was life. But in any event, the judge heard the testimony. [00:35:36] Speaker 1: We'll double-check. [00:35:37] Speaker 2: The judge heard the testimony, and the judge heard the evidence and saw the evidence and I think has a pretty good idea of what he's going to do. So that explains it. [00:35:46] Speaker 4: Megan, this is a real law and order judge. You saw during his questions for the jury, he wanted to make sure that he weeded out all jurors who didn't believe in American exceptionalism. So I suspect he's going to throw the book at Carmelo Anthony. I would say be closer to the ninety-nine than the five. He can't give him life without parole. You have to at least have an eligibility to have parole at some point since he's a juvenile. But he's going to get decades in prison. I just don't know how long. I would be interested in seeing what happens next as far as the testimony in favor of a lengthy sentence from the victim's families and those on the mitigation side. I don't know, though, if any of that will sway the judge. I think the judge has a number in his head, and he's going to go with it. [00:36:31] Speaker 1: Are you telling me that the family of Austin Metcalfe, like right now, is going to have to take the stand and do a victim impact statement, like immediately? Seems insane. [00:36:42] Speaker 3: I couldn't do it as a lawyer. I couldn't get up there and... [00:36:45] Speaker 1: How does... Well, how does it normally work? I mean, doesn't it normally... Isn't there normally like a break between the verdict and the sentencing? [00:36:50] Speaker 2: Yes, I've never seen that, but Texas is very different. It's 5 to 99 or life. That's the correct answer. So, you know, I guess the defense could have asked for some type of pre-sentence investigation, and they could have come back to do it another day. But this judge, being true to form, has apparently decided he wants this whole thing to be over and done with right now. And so... [00:37:14] Speaker 4: That is unusual. I've not seen that. [00:37:16] Speaker 2: He's about to pronounce sentence, yeah. [00:37:17] Speaker 4: In Florida. Yeah, that's very unusual, because it puts the families through a lot. [00:37:21] Speaker 1: I mean, what do you see? I mean, like, as a career prosecutor, Dave, when the defendant was a minor at the time of the crime, does a judge typically more often have some sympathy for the defendant? I mean, I don't want to call him a kid, because he's not, and he's certainly an adult now. Yeah. He's 18 or 19 now. This only happened last year, so I think he's probably 18 years old. But do you think this judge will have any softness in the sentence, given the age when the crime was committed? [00:37:55] Speaker 4: Not this judge, Megan. This is different than the Mackenzie Schirrilla case, which we discussed on MK True Crime, because there you had... [00:38:03] Speaker 1: From that Netflix special, The Crash. [00:38:04] Speaker 4: Right. She killed two people, and it was shown to be intentional. But because she was 17, she was given 15 years to life, and it was concurrent for the two deaths, which meant that she could conceivably get parole after 15 years, which is way too light. But here, you're talking about one death that was awful, and I think you have a different judge, though, a much tougher judge, and I think he's going to throw the book at him. And yes, it could be 5 to 99 or life with the possibility of parole at some point, but I think it's going to be up on the high digits, perhaps. I could see 50 years here. I could see that. Yeah, I could see that. I could... [00:38:42] Speaker 1: This judge... Why are you making that face? Why? [00:38:44] Speaker 3: Megan, Megan, Megan, Megan, Megan, Megan, come on. First of all, it was horrible what he did. Let's make that very, very clear. I'm not in any way, but let's compare this to other cases. He's 17 years old. The facts and circumstances are a little unusual. Doesn't everybody concede that on this panel for totally just looking at it from a mitigation perspective? Shouldn't he be treated a little differently than some other cases? That's all. You know, let's start with that. Can we at least start with that? [00:39:19] Speaker 1: I don't... If I were the prosecutor, I would get up and I would start with Austin Metcalf, not with Carmelo Anthony. Well, of course. He's never going to walk down the aisle. Of course. Never going to go to college. Of course. Never going to have a child. His parents are going to constantly grieve him. Oh, and by the way, I mean, not for nothing, and this isn't admissible, but the parents of Austin Metcalf tried to reach out to the family of Carmelo Anthony. There was a press conference. Remember, Dominique Alexander was there with Carmelo Anthony's parents. And Jeff Metcalf, he showed up. He wanted to hear what they had to say. And this cretin, Dominique Alexander, shamed him. He's trying to say he had done something like disrespectful. His son was dead. It was just so wrong. Like, they've been treated so wrong, the Metcalfs, by the Anthony's from the start. And if I were the judge, he may not be able to consider any of that, but he may be aware of just how disrespectful the whole family has been, soup to nuts, of this poor Metcalf family. And all I can think of is Hunter Metcalf, who's probably sitting in that courtroom right now, the identical twin, who held his dying brothers in his arms and wailed, I can't do this. I can't do this. He didn't, he didn't want it. He couldn't, he was bargaining the way we all do when we lose somebody. Yeah, he should get a significant sentence. I would be prepared to throw the book. I'd be fine with that. Well, you know, Mark, to really. I just feel like what kind of an, on a 17-year-old. What kind of callous person shoves a knife into another 17-year-old's heart with no provocation? [00:41:04] Speaker 3: He should get decades for that. [00:41:05] Speaker 2: There's no question. Well, Mark, to your point about should he be treated differently? Should he be treated differently? [00:41:08] Speaker 3: Proporality on sentencing, too. [00:41:10] Speaker 2: I mean, to your point about should he be treated differently because of his age? Well, I would submit that Texas law already treats him differently because if he gets the life sentence that I think he's going to get, he has to be eligible for parole. So life without parole is not off, is off the table. If he were an older person, then that would have been on the table. So the law already takes a lot of this into account and it gives the judge a lot of sort of discretion here. And so his age is already kind of factored into this. So the judge is going to make the decision based on the facts of this case and what's fair and what's just. [00:41:44] Speaker 1: So, Phil, you're saying life without parole or anything without parole, that's not an option because he was a lawyer when he came into the crime. [00:41:50] Speaker 4: Also, Megan, under Texas law, well, Texas law generally allows that an inmate has to serve at least half the sentence or 30 calendar years, whichever is less, before they're eligible for parole. So if he gets the 50 years, like I can imagine, he'd be eligible for parole in 25. But because of the case law, yes, because he was 17 as a juvenile, he won't get life without parole. He'll get a chance to get out early. [00:42:16] Speaker 1: Just this just in via the Daily Mail, Carmelo Anthony and his mother began to sob after the verdict was read to the courtroom. Judge John R. Roach asked if the court needed to take a break. Anthony's lawyer asked if he could take him somewhere before the judge reminded him that he is now guilty and in the custody of the sheriff's office. They don't mess around down in Texas. Evidence for the sentence will be heard when the court returns. Anthony's mother continued to weep as she leaned over her seat. Other members of the Anthony family were seen wiping away tears. Austin Metcalfe's parents smiled while their family and friends cried happy tears. I'm sure this is the first smile they've had in a long time. Carmelo is now back in court. The jury will return and we will begin the sentencing part of the trial now, says this is from inside the courtroom reported by, I'm not sure who she reports for. Oh, she's with the Daily Mail, Marianne Martinez. Megan, can I make a point about that? She reports, he's back in now, the jury's going to return. We will begin the sentencing part of the trial now. Jurors have to decide between five and 99 years in prison. I don't know if this is true, but we heard that there was an election to have the jury decide the sentencing as opposed to the judge. I don't know whether that's true, but that's apparently why we're going to do this right away because the jury's there. If it's the jury's task, the jury's not done with its work. Go ahead. [00:43:43] Speaker 2: So look, you're reading, you're checking X or you're checking the internet and you're checking to see what the reporters who are there in the courthouse and who are on the scene are reporting. This, I think, makes the case for live streaming of virtually all trials in the United States. There's no reason that I can think of, no good reason, not to have live streamed this, not to have allowed the public inside the courtroom to see. This is a highly controversial case. Whether it needs to be or not, it is. And so I think that the better plan, the better idea would be to have cameras in the courtroom, to have people able to watch and see for ourselves in real time what's happening. That way we're not left to the descriptions given to us by journalists, which a lot of them are doing a great job, but they may not always be accurate. We need to be able to see in real time what's happening, but in particular, we need to see the evidence. We need to hear this witness testimony. The people outside that courthouse need to hear the witness testimony, because otherwise, false narratives take hold, media narratives take hold, and the whole thing just spins out of control. If you have cameras in the courtroom, then we can eliminate most, if not all, of that nonsense, and we can take the public inside and see what we say on our show, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, okay, when it comes to these things, and it's time for all courts to go ahead and get into the 21st century and allow us to see what happens in their courtrooms. [00:45:23] Speaker 1: This just in, Carmelo Anthony's mother is taking the stand now as the sentencing phase of his murder trial begins. I can't imagine. Prosecution and defense waived opening statements. Mark, I can't either. [00:45:36] Speaker 3: Because I'm thinking of, first and foremost, I'm thinking, God, of everybody, my head's spinning. But as a lawyer, you put so much energy into a case, and then all of a sudden, the jurors give the worst news possible to you. Now, I don't know if the lawyers were expecting it, but at a minimum, you're putting all that energy towards trying to get an acquittal. Alternatively, you're thinking, you know, manslaughter. And then all of a sudden, boom, the worst case scenario. And now you have to get up and now fight for his life. It is insane. I just, they would never do that here. I've never heard of anything like that. It's just cruel. [00:46:15] Speaker 1: You're in Florida. [00:46:16] Speaker 3: I know. [00:46:17] Speaker 4: You know, Megan, it is interesting that in Texas, that the defendant before trial has the right to elect whether they want a judge or a jury to impose a sentence. So I was under the assumption that it's the judge that decides the sentence. I think it's a smart move for the defense to ask the jury to do it. I think we'll get a better sentence by the jury than by this real tough judge. And that's why they're going forward right now. [00:46:41] Speaker 1: I mean, it must be true, right? Because why else would they have called the jury back in and be taking witness testimony, you know, mitigation and so on from the mother that the jury must, must be, must have the decision in its hands. Again, we're not that familiar with Texas state criminal procedure, but we're trying to read what we, the people we trust and get and glean what's happening. And that's what we believe is happening, that they've elected to have the jury decide the sentence, that the mother's back on the stand or on the stand. And now, I mean, I don't know. [00:47:13] Speaker 2: You know, I went to law school in Texas and I had actually, there was a time where it was top of my mind that Texas had the option for jury sentencing. It had escaped me. And like Dave, I was just assuming it was going to be the judge. But it does make sense for the defense to seek jury sentencing, because to the extent there may have been no disagreements on guilt or innocence. Now you're going to have to have everybody with maybe a different point of view on what's the appropriate sentence now that we know that he's guilty of the crime. And so it could be a while. I don't know that you're going to see a three hour verdict on sentencing. [00:47:52] Speaker 1: Okay, but now listen to this. Fox Dallas reporting that Carmela's mother was asked if Carmelo regrets his behavior. She said, yes, he does regret it. Please have mercy on my son. She's saying he's remorseful. She's the only witness the defense plans to call. That just did. What? Okay. Put him on the stand. [00:48:14] Speaker 3: Okay. No, no, no. Listen, every single person my client ever said, God bless you two, I'd consider calling. Okay? His life is on the line. You got one person, the mom. That's all you got. Not a singer teacher, not the coach, nobody, friends, family. You've got to put people on there to humanize him. [00:48:35] Speaker 4: I can't believe him. Also, you could put him on the stand in this case. I know a lot of times you don't because you don't want to ruin the appeal. But here, remember, it's not a question whether he did it. We know he did it. The question is whether it was self-defense. He can go out there and say, I regret everything that happened. I wish it hadn't happened. And that won't hurt his appeal. Right. But I think it shows. [00:48:53] Speaker 1: He can't be cross-examined, Dave. [00:48:54] Speaker 4: Yes. Yes. And that's why he won't. That's why I won't do it. But at this point. I wouldn't do it, Dave. Dave, I wouldn't do it. All right. No, he wouldn't have the. He won't. [00:49:01] Speaker 3: He cannot capture the right effect, even if he feels it, even if he sleeps at night and he cries himself to sleep every night, which may or may not be the case. There's no way on the stand you can count on him connecting to what he did, the life that he took and the impact that it had on the family. It would be so difficult. And so any attempt up there would undermine what the jury, as a defense lawyer, you're trying to go for to get the jury to feel. You can't put him up there. You can't. [00:49:30] Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sure that these I was reading you the list of the people on the jury. There are men and there are women. I am sure that they will be moved by his mother. Yes. Begging for mercy. But Austin Metcalfe's mother is probably going to take. As she should. Yes. Yes. And that I mean, this is Texas, guys. You know, it's Texas. We are not in San Francisco. We're with the most leftist jurors. Megan, I love Texas justice. I learned that's a hard way. [00:50:01] Speaker 3: I took a case in Lubbock and I ran the facts by people in the community. They all said they would give my client life. And then they said they'd give me time for representing him. [00:50:11] Speaker 2: Yeah. [00:50:12] Speaker 3: That's what I learned. Yes. [00:50:16] Speaker 1: I was meant to live there. Yeah. So that's the problem is they're going to undoubtedly fail here from Austin's parents, one or both of them. And maybe, maybe from Sweet Hunter, his identical twin. Oh, boy. Think of the power of that. He looks exactly like him. [00:50:37] Speaker 2: Oh, my goodness. Yeah, it's almost like hearing from beyond the grave. Oh, my gosh. That's going to be crazy. It's not a good, it's not a good. That's what I would do. It's not good for, it doesn't bode well for Carmelo Anthony. This jury may not give him life if it's up to them. But he's going, I think we can all agree that he's going to be in a Texas prison for the foreseeable future. And if not all of his life, certainly most of it. What a sad, sad, tragic case all the way around. [00:51:08] Speaker 1: Well, listen to this, you guys. Listen to this. That no one will be taking the stand for the prosecution because they also rested. The defense rested after Carmelo's mom in the penalty portion of this case. The state also just rested. What? So the jury now will decide the punishment. I know. [00:51:29] Speaker 4: I don't get that. [00:51:30] Speaker 1: Mark, what's happening? [00:51:31] Speaker 3: In trial, you're limited on what you're allowed to say, right? You can call the mother up to identify, to do certain things, but she can't go all out on what the loss means because then you're appealing to sympathy. Sentencing, that's exactly what it's for. She should be up there. Family members should be up there explaining what the loss meant. I can't imagine why they're not doing it. [00:51:56] Speaker 1: Right. I genuinely don't get why they wouldn't put one of the Metcalfs on the stand. [00:52:00] Speaker 4: Maybe they're exhausted. I mean, this has been an emotionally draining trial, and now you've got to go and do the penalty phase right away. I don't know. They should have had it lined up. And I'm sure maybe they just decided they put up one witness on the defense side and let it just play out. But I think, yes, you should put up the twin. I mean, you've got to go for what the family wants, which is clearly they want this guy to be in prison as long as possible. So how do you leave money on the table like that? I think they should put up more. [00:52:29] Speaker 1: I know. I mean, I know it's all relatively recent, but all I can think is of the Idaho case, the Idaho 4. It's like that murder was as gruesome as they come. But the family members did take the stand. They were there during the penalty phase. We talked about it at the time. And, you know, I feel like the family probably would have done its duty and spoken on behalf of Austin. Maybe the prosecution said there's no need. Trust me. You know. I don't know. Or maybe they just don't want to have a hand in it. You know, remember, Erica Kirk was asked about whether she wanted this to be a death penalty case. It is a death penalty case against Tyler Robinson. And she said, I don't want to weigh in on that because as a Christian woman, she just didn't want to have a hand in possibly leading somebody to their death. And that, you know, that could also, death penalty is not on the table here, but it's possible the family just didn't even want to have a role in the penalty phase and just wanted the justice to play out as it is now. Punishment phase just ended after one witness, two questions from the defense, one from the prosecution. And now judges work. The judge is working on the jury charge. And then I guess the jury's got to go back into the deliberation room and come up with a number. First, it was coming up with a guilt or an innocence, and now it's going to have to be coming up with a number. I don't know. That's have you guys ever seen a jury come to a decision on sentencing before? And do you think we have do we have anything to go on as to whether they generally go hard or easy? [00:54:12] Speaker 4: I got nothing. I've never seen a jury do it. I've seen juries recommend, like in death penalty cases, they could recommend, but it's a judge's decision ultimately. But this is weird where the jury comes up with the sentence and the judge doesn't play a role. [00:54:26] Speaker 2: And what if they're divided? So the jury charge is going to say things like, you know, whatever your enlightened conscience, you know, leads you to within the statutory range. And the judge will spell out what the possible options are for them. And then he'll have to send it back. And the judge has indicated previously that he would not mind letting this jury work late into the day or even into the night. So it may very well be that everybody just wants this to be over and done today. Close the book on this case and move on to whatever comes next for that judge's docket. So on the other hand, the jury could say, you know what, we're exhausted. We need to go home, sleep on this. We'll come back and work tomorrow. So he may let them make that call, too. [00:55:13] Speaker 1: Where, where, I don't, where's the mitigating factors that they always present on team defense? You know, lack of criminal history. Somebody gets up there and says he, he was in the Cub Scouts. And he, that one time he helped the lady with their groceries. And, you know, he was the captain of the track team. And then you put a track team member up there saying he helped me out this one time. Like, I don't, Mark, is it possible that didn't exist or? It always exists. [00:55:41] Speaker 3: Megan, I've represented some really dark fellas. You find people, you find relatives, you find anybody, rent a witness. I'm kidding. But there's got to be something, something that you could put up there to help mitigate. This kid's looking at. [00:55:56] Speaker 1: I want you. I say, Mark, you get up there. Tell them about me. I know you guys got to run. I don't want to hold you over. If you don't have to run, please stay here. [00:56:06] Speaker 3: I would say I see him at Publix all the time. And he goes up to the bruised apples and he whispers, who did this to you? He's so compassionate. Whatever it takes, Megan. [00:56:19] Speaker 4: Maybe they're seeking ineffective assistance of counsel. But generally, that's. Not at this point, buddy. That's what I'm saying. Generally, that's not in the penalty phase. [00:56:25] Speaker 1: Do you have to leave right this second? I really want to hear that out. [00:56:28] Speaker 4: Well, generally, that's for the guilt phase, not in the penalty phase of a trial. So I think at this point, it's unlikely. But I can't explain why you wouldn't put up all the mitigating evidence. That's the thing that the defense can do. They can put up anything like his mother smoked in the womb. Remember they did that with the Marjory Stoneman Douglas mass murderer? Yeah. [00:56:49] Speaker 1: That happened to me, too. I knew my mother was to blame for all my problems. There you go. [00:56:54] Speaker 3: Exactly. Hey, Megan. I got a show called Positively Legal under the MK brand. And I got Jonna Spilboer and producers waiting for me. I should have been there several minutes ago. So, yeah. [00:57:05] Speaker 1: Go. I know you guys got to go. I'm going to keep going. Because we're going to see if we can possibly get to this recommendation. [00:57:13] Speaker 2: Yeah. Go ahead, Phil. No, but I was, too, I was going to excuse myself. Thank you very much for having us. I have a dog that needs to get to a veterinary appointment. But always happy to be here with you and talk about these great programs. And we want everybody to make sure they check all of us out over at MK True Crime. We've got three great shows over there. [00:57:36] Speaker 1: Absolutely. Check out my panel. And, Dave, I think you have to go, too, according to my producers. They all got to leave me. But I have another team coming in. You guys, thank you. You've all been terrific. And I really appreciate you on the last minute joining us for the breaking news. Check out all of these guys at MK True Crime. That's where we have all of their shows, Positively Legal and the MK True Crime Show, along with In the Well, starring Mark Garagos and Matt Murphy. And you just have to hit one little follow button on your podcast streamer in order to get all of their content. You can check them out on YouTube as well. We're going to get some other lawyers joining us in one second. But I just want to tell you what's happening outside of the courtroom now. These new Black Panthers are behaving terribly, injecting, once again, race where it doesn't belong. Take a listen to the following color from outside of the courthouse. This is a female Black Panther. [00:58:32] Speaker 6: We've got to tell our kids the truth, that this is a racist-ass country. We're going to tell them the truth. Who done can stop that cool-ass shit? No, nobody want to hear about what we do to each other. We're talking about what they're doing to us. White folks kill white folks. Mexicans kill Mexicans. We ain't trying to hear no cool shit today. Go over there with them white folks with that. This is a racist-ass country. We're in a racist-ass state. This is a racist-ass court. There ain't nothing else to talk about. When has a white boy been before an all-black jury? Tell us, media. Tell us, white folks. This is a war. This is a war. This is a war. And it's been going on. This war's been going on. They never stop being racist. [00:59:29] Speaker 1: Nice. So, in case you missed it, this is a war. We've got to tell our kids the truth, that this is a racist-ass country. And then asked the question, when has a white boy ever been judged by an all-black jury? Of course, trying to inject race into it, suggesting this jury's racist. Let's be honest. That's what she's suggesting, that they didn't give him a fair trial because he's black and they're white, which is just so outrageous and unfounded. And that's straight out of the Dominique Alexander playbook, who is the spokesperson for the Anthony family. And this is the poison he's been injecting into the bloodstream of Frisco and hoping that someone who thought, as he and this woman do, would make it onto the jury. And unfortunately for him, they ran a very tight process and they weeded out those people. They weeded out people who would have allowed race to dictate their verdict. And you can see she's very upset about it. In fact, what they did was they allowed the facts and the law to dictate their verdict. And that's how we wound up with a guilty on murder, which is exactly what Carmelo Anthony committed and what he deserved. Back on the elements of the case, we did pull the statutes and stand by. Murder is an offense. Okay, you've got to prove that the person, actually I lost it, but it's knowingly or intentionally. I'll find it. There's so many texts from my team. Here it is. Person commits an offense of murder. If the person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual. Or if they intend to cause serious bodily injury and commit an act, excuse me, clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death. I mean, that's just, there's just no question that that's what happened here. Like, you knowingly caused the death of Austin Metcalf when you, whatever the equivalent of a sucker punch is, you sucker stabbed him in the heart with no warning. And no, no buildup, no, no even verbal threat that that was on the table. Nothing. The prosecutor was pointing out in his closing, there were no defensive wounds. Austin Metcalf did not see this coming. He had no idea his life was in danger. Carmelo Anthony took that. He played God. He played the devil. And in a moment, it was over. So, that's murder. It's not manslaughter. And this jury got it 100% right. Again, for those of you just joining us, Carmelo Anthony has been found guilty of murder by a Collin County jury. He is in the custody of the Collin County sheriff right now. They are deliberating his fate when it comes to the penalty phase of this, what his sentence should be. It's between 5 and 99 years or life. 5 and 99 years is, I believe, what the jury is choosing between here. Because he was a minor when he committed the crime, no parole is not an option. So, he will be eligible for parole, no matter what sentence he gets. The jury, it's true, did not have any black members on it. But it had multiple minorities, including Asian women, a Hispanic or an Indian man, a Middle Eastern woman wearing a head covering, an Indian woman in her 30s. And at least two or three others whom the reporters couldn't tell whether they were Hispanic or white. But they, too, may have been minorities. Just couldn't tell. And apparently, in some trials, you get access to the juror forms. And this one, clearly, we didn't. Here's a little bit more color for you on what happened inside the courtroom on the penalty phase. The local CBS, again, this is J.D. Miles reporting that Carmelo Anthony's mother told the jury, he's my oldest, he's my firstborn, he will always be my baby, I love him very much. The defense, does your son regret what he did? Yes, he's very sorry for what he did. I got to be honest, I don't have a lot of tolerance for this mother. She sat there in back of Dominique Alexander. Let me show you that bit from Dominique Alexander trying to demonize Austin's dad, Jeff Metcalfe. Just listen to this one. This is from April of 2025, SOT 15. [01:04:22] Speaker 7: What we've seen at the beginning of this press conference. [01:04:26] Speaker 1: Parents are behind him. [01:04:28] Speaker 7: Of the father being at this press conference is a disrespect to the dignity of his son. If that was disrespectful and just shows you all, the character, who is not invited, he knows that it's inappropriate to be near this family. But he did. And so I say to people, actions speak louder than words. Okay? What he has failed into is the political operatives that want to make this thing a political thing of hate, yet bigotry, and yet racism. We have conservative operatives that have been posting nonstop. [01:05:26] Speaker 1: Unbelievable. Ashley Merchant is my guest now. She joins us. She's also part of our MK True Crime Network, and you may know her from her very famous and laudable Fannie Willis case participation. She's the one who we have to thank for getting that case dismissed. Ashley, it's infuriating because in that clip, what the listening audience can't see is Carmelo Anthony's parents standing right behind him. Of course, Jeff Metcalf showed up at this presser involving his son's murder. [01:06:00] Speaker 8: Right. Oh, Megan, it just, it gives me goosebumps when I watch that because I blame them for this because he should have made a better decision. And that's, you know, as a defense lawyer, it just really pains me. Same. Well, part of our job is to make people make the best decisions or help them make the best decisions. And it's the same as a mother. And this mother, part of her job is to help her son make a good decision. He did it. He's guilty. If he felt bad, like she told the jurors, maybe he should have gone in and begged for a deal ahead of time, begged for mercy ahead of time, and thrown himself at the mercy of the prosecution, the mercy of the victim's family. You know, done that instead of dragged it out and had this defense this whole time that, you know, this is racist and self-defense. I mean, that doesn't show that you're taking responsibility. That doesn't show that you feel bad for what you've done. And I'm saying this as a defense lawyer. I mean, they needed to have that serious conversation with him. He's a kid. The parents needed to have a very serious conversation with him about taking responsibility for your actions. And they didn't. [01:07:03] Speaker 1: That's right. They didn't. And not only did they stand there while this Dominique Alexander, their family spokesperson, tried to shame the victim's father, who I'm sure was there to make sure his child wasn't being smeared or attacked by this villainous Alexander character. But they stood there and let him say all of that about Jeff Metcalf. They stood there and listened as well when he played the race card, with which they were obviously totally fine. Here's thought 13 from that same presser, April 17th, 2025. [01:07:45] Speaker 7: Black people in America, while the current occupant sits at 1600 Pennsylvania, black people in America don't have to pull the race card. It's what we live as a reality every day is what we have to teach our children. We don't want to, but we have to. We don't like to, but if we want to sleep at night, we got to. I ain't pulling no race card. I'm reminded all the time that I'm a black man in America. [01:08:26] Speaker 1: Oh, my God. I mean, Ashley, it's outrageous what they did, what they tried to pull off. [01:08:32] Speaker 8: It's absolutely outrageous. It backfired, and I hate it for them because they got awful advice. This person, this Dominique Alexander, I mean, just creating a racial profile out of this that wasn't race. There's nothing to do with race. This was just a killing. This was just a kid who should not have been there with a knife and should have been taught better, not taking responsibility. It has nothing to do with race, but I can't help but think that they wanted to influence the jury and wanted the jury to be walking past folks every day to somehow think that this was racially motivated when it wasn't. There's no evidence of that. [01:09:07] Speaker 1: They're the only ones who injected race into this case, them. And honestly, it's why I'm not convinced that race wasn't a motive in this case on their son's part. I'm not. [01:09:19] Speaker 8: Not on Austin Metcalfe's part. Right. I'm not either, and I'm not convinced that it wasn't something in the back of their head thinking, I can use this as an excuse. You know, this will go along with my self-defense claim. You know, something like that. I can't help but think that that was somewhere in the back of their head. Yeah. [01:09:37] Speaker 1: There's no way the parents are full of this level of racial grievance. No. And the son isn't. No. I don't believe that. And he obviously has a hair trigger, which also is possibly born of racial grievance. So I just like, I have no tolerance for this. And I, I think that that's the only witness they put on that stand. The mother saying as little as she did, because let's face it in, in all likelihood, that's all there was. They probably didn't have some Cub Scout leader or other person who could wax poetic about the virtues of Carmelo Anthony. [01:10:13] Speaker 8: They didn't. And I'll tell you, Megan, it was really surprising to me that they did not put Carmelo Anthony actually on the stand. In a self-defense case, that absolutely shocked me. I mean, he doesn't have prior convictions. So usually if you don't put your client on the stand, it's because they, they can't, they can't honestly say they didn't do it. They have prior convictions. They have something they want to hide. Or you're concerned that they're going to lose their temper under cross-examination. And I can't help but think that it had to be that last one. And it had to be that they were so nervous that he was going to lose his temper during cross-examination and show the jury that violence streak and that they were afraid of that. Or else why would they not have put him on the stand? [01:10:51] Speaker 1: Yes, I, I totally agree with you. He must not have been a sympathetic witness at all. If he couldn't even take the stand to express that he regretted murdering Austin. And that he was scared. [01:11:06] Speaker 8: Apparently he wasn't able to sell it. We needed to hear that he was scared. We needed to hear, we needed to see, the jury needed to see that fear. And that was the only thing that would have, could have potentially saved him if they actually saw that fear. If it existed, but clearly it didn't exist. [01:11:23] Speaker 1: Yeah. Now I want to bring in a first-time guest on the case. Ashley stays with us, who has covered this case very closely. His name is Imran Ansari, and he's a law partner of our pal, Arthur Aydala. Imran, great to see you. Your thoughts on the breaking news here that it's a guilty verdict, it's on murder, and they're already going to the penalty phase with the defense presenting one witness only, Carmelo Anthony's mother. And then both sides resting and giving the case back to the jury to come up with a sentence. [01:11:51] Speaker 9: Yeah, Megan, I'm not surprised at this verdict. And he had swift justice there, right? They were deliberating for maybe three hours or so when they came back with this verdict. And to Ashley's point, when you have a justification defense, a self-defense defense, you have to put the defendant on the stand. The jury needs to step in his or her shoes, needs to get in their mind, and have to appreciate what they saw with their words. If you're going to put that defense out there and not put the defendant on the stand, you might as well take that justification, affirmative defense, and not put it out before that jury. And that's what they did here because there really was no defense here. And if you took the facts, you heard the witnesses and how they testified about what they saw, really how would they craft a justification defense? And I think if he took the stand, it would have just been all the more worse in terms of now, at least they could try to mitigate the sentencing phase. And if he took that stand, the cross-examination, some of his testimony, they may have not even been able to do that at the sentencing phase. So I'm not surprised at the verdict, and I am not surprised at the time that the jury took to render this verdict. [01:13:09] Speaker 1: You know, I have to say, I thought that the defense lawyer's performance was so abysmal, it occurred to me, is he intentionally trying to throw this case because there's no defense, and get him an ineffective assistance of counsel, appellate, ground? I really did ask myself that, and then I remembered that that doesn't work if the case is open and shut against the client. Like, you have to go back in, so now that he's convicted, and if he wants to file an appeal, which they always do, he'll have to say ineffective assistant of counsel. And actually, he'll have to then prove to the court that an effective lawyer could have gotten him off. Right. Which is, like, it doesn't make any sense to intentionally tank it. [01:13:56] Speaker 8: Right. It doesn't make any sense. And I think he would have a really hard time going over that hurdle to prove that the result, essentially, he would have to prove on ineffective that the result would have been different if he had a different lawyer, not just, you know, the lawyer maybe made some mistakes. But, you know, as I've watched this case, I was thinking about the defense lawyer and thinking, I wonder if he's tanking it, or I wonder if his hands are tied. And those are very different things for a defense lawyer. When our hands are tied, it's because mom's in the room and she's saying, you know, you be a proud whatever, you're, you know, you're innocent, you're this, you're wonderful, you're my baby, don't take a plea, don't listen to the advice of counsel, you know, we're going to put forward this defense. And so we as defense lawyers control certain aspects of the case, but we don't control everything. And so the decision to testify, for example, that is up to the client, that is up to the defendant. And when you have a 17-year-old, his parents were probably involved in that decision. So I can't force my client to do that. And also things like manslaughter, for example, when I saw the judge give that manslaughter instruction, I thought, you know, a really good move here would be for Anthony to have testified and told them that this was an accident. I feel awful and tried for that manslaughter, you know, tried for something in the middle because that could have saved, that could have saved a lot of his life. I mean, he definitely would have spent many years in prison, but he would have gotten out. And I can't help but think that that defense lawyer probably wanted that for his client and is probably upset that, you know, maybe the parents influenced him, maybe society influenced him, who knows who influenced him, but that he wasn't really making the right decision because he's 17. [01:15:28] Speaker 1: And what we know from the Daily Mail is that these parents, in addition to playing the race card through their spokesperson and attacking Jeff Metcalf as the villain, that they took the money they got from Give, Send, Go and reportedly used it on this very nice mansion where they moved their family to. They claimed it was a safety issue. I don't I don't think you have to move into a mansion in order to ensure safety, but that they did still have enough to hire this lawyer. This is this guy was legal aid. He was a public defender, but he's not now. He's in private practice. So I assume they are paying him a private practice fee, but the parents, forgive me, didn't seem like their child's welfare was really their number one concern given that behavior. Right. [01:16:18] Speaker 9: And absolutely, Megan. And that would be the real injustice here. Right. Not looking at this case from a standpoint, from a defendant's standpoint where we maybe embrace and Ashley, you were you were mentioning that you embrace the weaknesses in the case. You concede certain things in order to get the jury, if they're going to convict and the writing is on the wall to convict on a lesser count. And that manslaughter count was there for that jury, but they didn't pivot for that. And if the parents saw this case as a means to perhaps make some money, to generate some sort of issue out there that wasn't really an issue in this particular case, get publicity. Then, you know, that's the real injustice, because the decisions in this case perhaps were not even being made by that young man in the defendant's chair, who perhaps would have a chance at getting out at a reasonable age. You know, if that manslaughter was the one of the sentencing had mitigation, but no, this was turned into an issue that it perhaps should not have been. And the real driving force behind that, we don't know it, but it could be the parents. And that would be a real injustice for that defendant and also for the family of the victim, because now it was brought into a light where it shouldn't have been. This was a killing that was without justification. The jury saw that. The jury saw what the evidence really told. And now, unfortunately, there's a lot of loss of life here, right? You have a loss of life in the Metcalf side, and then you have this young man who's going to probably spend the rest of his life potentially behind bars if they're not able to get some mitigation at this late standpoint in the sentencing phase. [01:18:00] Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel like these parents, Ashley, they they thought that race card was going to work. They probably thought they'd wind up with some black jurors who feel the way they do, not normal black jurors who see justice like we all do, but ones who are like guided by racial identity. Like that woman who soundbite we ran yesterday who said, we take care of our own. You take care of your own. Right. And they wound up not getting that. And I'm sure they're quite disappointed. Here is just some color from outside of the courthouse. This person is a Carmelo Anthony supporter and listen to the messaging just now. [01:18:41] Speaker 10: What do you want us to do? What do you want us to do at this point? What? I'm lost for it. I don't know what to do. I got five boys. I don't know. I ain't got nothing to tell them no more. You can't walk away no more. [01:18:55] Speaker 7: Rest in peace, Trayvon Martin. Let me ask you this right now. [01:19:01] Speaker 1: Okay, got cut off in an awkward place there. That's via Hey JB show on WFLA, which is on Nexstar. And by the way, our earlier soundbite was from Nick Sorter, the one where we showed the Black Panther claiming the country's racist and the court is racist. And this is a war. So, yeah, what am I going to tell my kids? Why don't you tell your kids not to stab somebody in the heart over a track meet tent? [01:19:29] Speaker 8: Right. And then they'll be fine. I mean, and don't bring a knife in the first place. Don't bring a weapon. You don't need a weapon. You shouldn't have a weapon there. I can't help but notice the absence, though, of any character witnesses, which I thought was really interesting in a self-defense case. You know, we talked a few minutes ago about how the fact that he didn't testify himself, but the fact that there were no character witnesses. This is a 17-year-old kid. Is there not a guidance counselor at that school? Is there not an assistant principal that he's, is he not in a club? Is he not, does his track coach not know him and be able to testify on his behalf? That was really interesting to me because if you have an affirmative defense like self-defense, unless there's bad character that you don't want to open the door to, you're going to put up a character defense. And so the only reason that I can imagine that the teachers weren't testifying, the guidance counselors weren't testifying, the church, you know, the pastor wasn't testifying, is that they were worried about opening the door to other acts of violence. And we haven't heard that yet because he's a juvenile. But why else would you not put up a character defense? [01:20:27] Speaker 1: I just, I don't understand that. That's a very good question. That's what I was saying is like, he doesn't have a criminal record because he's a juvenile, but that doesn't mean he didn't commit crimes and pay for them in the juvie system. [01:20:36] Speaker 8: It doesn't, and he opens the door, even like if there's school things, if there were some, you know, if there are any indiscretions at school, even if they were administrative, that would open the door. If you put up a good character defense, that opens the door to all of that. Yeah. [01:20:50] Speaker 1: And she said he's her oldest, which means she's got other kids. Like you couldn't have a kid, like a younger sister say, please, please, you know, don't put my brother away forever. It's very strange that they limited it so much. Standby. I want to bring in Viva Frye, who's joining us now to add to our panel. Viva, are you surprised by any of this, in particular, that we are already in the sentencing phase and that it's already over the testimonials on his behalf? [01:21:21] Speaker 11: What I was shocked about is how fast this trial moved. And full disclosure, everybody knows this. I'm a former Quebec civil litigator. I don't have any meaningful experience in criminal law, but with a criminal trial of this magnitude, to have opening statements be 20 minutes, jury selection an hour and three quarters, trial on a Saturday or hearings on a Saturday, and the entire trial is over in a week. On the one hand, I think it's a testament to the weakness of what I always believed to be a totally fabricated defense of self-defense. It was after the fact, ex post facto nonsense, to try to justify the horrific, unjustifiable, in any sense, of what he did. And once they saw just how bad that was going, the fact that they ended their defense after basically a day and a half, there was no point digging the hole any further. But the truly malicious thing about this, the murder is, it's beyond horror. The victimizing of the victim in the raising of a defense of self-defense, and then the online mob that comes out there and says Austin Metcalf was the aggressor, that compounds the awfulness and the evil of the action. But this was, it was a train wreck disaster, slam dunk of a murder case, and there was no point dragging it on any longer for the defense. [01:22:38] Speaker 1: Here's a little bit more in mind of what we're hearing from outside the courthouse, the reaction from this radical group of new Black Panthers and their supporters. Not everyone there is a new Black Panther. This is via Nick's order as well. Take a listen in here, SOT 56. [01:22:53] Speaker 12: To protect Black people. Anytime a white man or a white child can go and put their hands aggressively on anybody and something like this occur, it's self-defense. It's self-defense. You put your hand on me and see how I respond. Beat your mother fucker, Shane. What will the Anthony family do? What will the Anthony family do? What will the people that are standing behind the Anthony family do? That's the question you should ask. We're going to stand behind them and we're going to fight. That's what's going to happen. [01:23:24] Speaker 2: What is your relation to the Anthony family? [01:23:26] Speaker 12: I have no relation. We're Black. We're brothers. We're Black. We're brothers and sisters. We're Black. We're the indigenous people of this earth. Black people. Black sisters and brothers. Black kings and queens. We've got to stick together. This makes no goddamn sense. That young boy, he was defending his goddamn self. [01:23:47] Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Imran, but if this is the Black jury pool that they were looking at for this case, is it any wonder that the jury is without any Blacks? [01:23:56] Speaker 9: Well, certainly if that was the attitude that was being, you know, given during the voir dire, right, jury selection, no juror like that would ever be selected or a potential juror. And I have to just get to what is going on outside that courthouse now to suggest that there was some motivation by race or of race by that jury when they rendered their verdict. After hearing the evidence, after hearing the testimony, watching the video, seeing all the forensic evidence that was put before them, that is so insulting, right? It's so insulting to those jurors who sat there, listened to the evidence, and rendered a verdict based on that evidence just to assume and hurl these accusations that somehow it was racially motivated. It's just not there. And it's an insult to those jurors, the people in that courtroom, and also the justice system. So not everything has to be racially motivated. And to turn this, right, which was based on evidence, that evidence that we saw play out in that courtroom, whether the defendant was Black and the victim was Black or white and white, the evidence would be the same, Megan. And that evidence did not support a defense of justification or self-defense. There was no way of viewing that evidence to say that he acted proportionally or had the legal right to stab Metcalf. That's it. Period. End. Report. And that's why you have that burden. [01:25:32] Speaker 1: Proportionality. That's what it's all about. Proportionality. You can, if, if Austin Metcalf had gone over to him with a hammer, we, we wouldn't be here. Like, it's, it would have been a different story, but he didn't, he didn't even punch him. He didn't, he did nothing. He literally just laid hands on him, was the testimony. The one guy who was sitting next to Carmelo, Carmelo Anthony, testified that Austin, quote, pushed him so gently, Anthony didn't even get bumped into his neighbor. Like, his body didn't even, like, brush up against the neighbor. So it wasn't much of a push. And of course, Austin Metcalf was a strapping football player who, if he really wanted to hurt Carmelo Anthony, you know, he could have done it. If he wanted to push him in a way that would have gotten his attention, he could have done it. He didn't. I regret to tell you that Dominique Alexander is speaking outside of the courthouse, of course, because he's not going to miss his two minutes of fame. And you'll be shocked, shocked to hear his messaging. Let's play it. [01:26:32] Speaker 7: What this process did has shown that black lives do not matter in Collin County. It showed us that time and time in American history, it put emotions over the law. After Trayvon Martin and so many countless names, it has shown us that black life is not safe in Collin County. It showed us that they did not listen to the law. It showed clearly that a judge interfered in this process. It showed very clearly that a black boy was allowed, not one black soul on a jury. [01:27:17] Speaker 1: Ashley, I mean, O-M-G. [01:27:20] Speaker 8: It makes me so mad because it's not true. Like, it's just not true. You know, that's not how jury selection works. It's just not true. And so, I mean, yes, it's unfortunate that it was an all-white jury. But his lawyers pitched that jury. It's a process of deselection. If the lawyers thought that it was unfair and that it was somehow biased, they could have objected. They could have re-paneled the jury. They could have moved to shuffle. I've done all of that. There's so many things you can do if you actually think there's some systematic exclusion of any race, sex, gender, anything. You can move to re-shuffle. I mean, there's so many remedies. So, you know, when I hear him, I'm like, he's clearly not a lawyer out there talking about something that he doesn't have any business talking about. And it's very frustrating because these citizens have given up their lives for a week. And, you know, listening to jury, doing jury duty and actually having to sit through all of this weighs very heavy on these jurors. I've talked to a ton of jurors after the fact. And we were just at CrimeCon and they actually had a panel of ex-jurors who were talking about the profound impact it had. When he gets up there and he says this, it just devalues that civic duty that they're doing when they're doing jury duty. And, you know, they're paying attention to this case. You know that they're weighing these lives very carefully, the lives, you know, that were lost and the life that they have in their hands, Mr. Anthony's life. And it's just very unfortunate to see their service, their civic duty discounted like that and just tossed aside and said that, you know, they're racist because because they voted with the law and with the evidence. [01:28:48] Speaker 1: Oh, and Viva, this shows the verdict shows black men are not safe in Collin County. The decedent is a dead man, is a dead white man. He's a dead white man, not a black man. Get it straight, Dominique. [01:29:05] Speaker 11: It's utterly absurd. But just so the media doesn't pounce on Ashley, that there were minorities on the panel. So it wasn't all white. There was a couple of Asians, a Muslim woman, I think Latino. As far as it goes, though, the argument of the intersectionality of racism is that it was of no use to a black defendant to have minorities who are not black because you wouldn't have that collegiality as though that's what you're supposed to have in a jury pool. It's supposed to be a jury of your peers, not a jury of your supporters. And, you know, some people might argue, well, you know, the Asian community might not have things in common with the black community. So therefore, it's not even like having a put it in quotes, a useful minority on the on the jury pool. But the idea that they can come out and suggest and at least the saving grace is it seems to be a very small handful of people who are free during the day to go and protest in front of a cut and pry murder case. So it's not a broader scale thing. But for the for the woman who came out there, the black woman in the pink jersey to say, if a white person puts their hands on me, see what happens to you. That's a criminal threat. We're not talking about self-defense. We're talking about murder. And what they're basically saying is what got Scott Adams in the deepest of trouble for. She is saying out loud what Scott Adams got canceled for. I don't want to be around white people. If a white person touches me, I feel entitled to murder them. That's what she said. Luckily, it's just a handful of what I think are crazies and not a broader sentiment. But maybe I'm being too optimistic. [01:30:31] Speaker 1: No, you're right. It's actually a good point about the Scott Adams thing. Just the the incendiary nature of this guy. I'm telling you, I mean, you tell me, Imran, it tells us something about these parents that they selected this man as their family spokesperson. He's not been fired after that presser from April of 2025. He's still there. He's outside of the courthouse, once again, spewing off, mentioning Trayvon Martin after Trayvon Martin and so many countless names. It's shown us that black life is not safe in Collin County. I mean, look, I don't want to make this all about that nut, but he speaks for the family. [01:31:11] Speaker 9: Right. And you would hope, Megan, that he would be speaking accurately, but he's not right. We're seeing a distortion about what happens in a criminal trial in the justice system and this conclusory remarks, you know, making these assumptions as to what happened in that court. And then there's apples and oranges, right? Comparing this to Trayvon Martin. This is not that case. This is not that case at all. You have someone bringing a knife to a game who has no threat against them of any deadly force and decides to take that knife out and plunge it into the heart of another human being. That's it. You don't have to have all this commotion outside. In fact, it's a disservice to the defense, I think, because you start detracting from what should be the focus on the evidence there and the trial. And you start getting this whole circus out there and it really doesn't advance anything. It just divides further. But you have to speak accurately here, going to a microphone and just saying these words, right? Well, we live in an information age where every little thing is going to be picked apart. And I'm sure what he said out there will be picked apart by someone on social media from the other side. We're doing that right now, right? We're scrutinizing that. But to do that and just create more division and confusion and disinformation, that's what you're seeing there, right? But right now, again... [01:32:43] Speaker 1: Yeah, I want to add one point to that. Not only that, so it's a disservice to the Anthony family and certainly to the family of Austin Metcalf. It's a disservice to black people who are normal and do not think like this as a group. Most black Americans aren't looking at this being like, a black man can't get a fair trial in America anywhere. And this proves that black lives don't matter in Collin County. Bullshit. That's a lie. This is a handful of lunatics, radicals outside of this courthouse saying a bunch of nonsense that does not reflect what regular black people think. These are activists out there, Ashley, embarrassing themselves and undermining or trying to undermine the faith in a system that did its duty and came to the obvious only right conclusion under these particular facts and law. [01:33:35] Speaker ?: Great. [01:33:36] Speaker 8: And I would argue that they probably hurt. The protesters probably hurt because the jurors had to know. I mean, they live in this community. They had to know about this. And when you see this every day, you walk into court, you think you're going to hear something explosive. You think, you know, with all of the publicity that we heard and all the protesters, I thought we were going to hear that that Mr. Metcalf had said something awful or done something awful, that there was going to be some, you know, smoking gun that they kept from us all because, you know, there's no way Dominique Alexander is going to give these press conferences and say all this and, you know, promise all of this stuff if there's not going to be something when we go into court. So I would imagine these jurors walking past these protesters every day thinking this is this huge racial case. This is biased. You know, we're going to hear some explosive evidence. We're probably left wondering what, like, where was it? And it probably did a disservice to his defense. [01:34:25] Speaker 1: You know what else, Viva, like the indignity of these comments, because what are we dealing with in the news right now? We saw Henry Novak murdered by Vikram Digwa in the UK and a police force that refused to render aid or even believe him that he'd been stabbed five times because they were so anxious to accept the racial narrative over there that it had to be the white man who was the perpetrator and not the brown Sikh man who actually had stuck a knife in him five times. This morning, we wake up to an attempted beheading by someone from Sudan in Northern Ireland, attacking a man 40 years old, a white man who was within an inch of dying and still is not out of the woods. He's in the hospital now with reportedly terrible damage to his eyes. It could have been far worse had a man not stepped in and saved his life, a civilian. That's the narrative that we've been seeing on our television screens over the past week. Now, this guy wants to come out and talk about how racist we are against people of color in America. It's a lie. This is bullshit. [01:35:30] Speaker 11: It's, you know, there's the old expression of the soft bigotry of low expectations, and it's also just known as bigotry. But I'm actually having these discussions with, you know, certain people on Twitter where one person actually said there were two ways for this, you know, not to have happened. One, Austin Metcalfe could have gotten an adult and not asked Carmelo to leave, and the other is Carmelo could, you know, should not have stabbed him. And I'm like, apply that analogy to a woman who gets raped and you say, well, there were two ways for her not to have gotten raped. She could have not gone to the nightclub or the rapist could not have raped her. As if to normalize this type of behavior in the first place, it's demeaning to the very people that they purport to be protecting to say, yeah, you know, there were two ways for this not to happen. You know, Anthony could have, Austin Metcalfe could have not exceeded the limits of his authority as a kid, or, you know, the other guy could not have stabbed him in the heart. As if those two responses are somehow comparable. So it does a disservice. I just say the only saving grace here, I think, is it's a very vocal group of radicals and not a broader sort of us versus them, like we saw with OJ Simpson, when I remember otherwise rational people, or so I thought, saying this is a victory because OJ Simpson got away with murder, allegedly. In this case, it seems to be a much more narrow group of radicals located to the courthouse, you know, some sort of Black Panther offshoot. And it doesn't seem to be wider spread or more, you know, broader across the national spectrum. [01:36:55] Speaker 1: Here's a little bit more from outside of the courthouse. This is an attorney, Michael Jafar. I don't know that he had any role in the case. I think he's just an attorney, but could be wrong. This was on court TV's coverage of this. Take a listen to his reaction. [01:37:12] Speaker 13: I mean, this is a questioning the jury. I asked him, how did you reach your verdict? How did you reach it so quickly? What happened? He was a four inch knife. He used it one time. He was he was pushed. I'm not saying that it was right. But what are you what are you doing? How did you get this verdict? I'd want to know my whole identity as a defense attorney would be in question, right? I'd be I'm questioning my identity right now. And I have nothing to do with this case. How could you how could you come back like that? I would be enraged. I'm enraged right now. This is very upsetting. And then on top of that, to compound it, this dumb judge didn't allow cameras in the courtroom. What was your wisdom? What were you thinking? How are you put on a robe? Are you that much of an imbecile that you won't let cameras in the courtroom in a case like this? This is not a rape case. This is something different. This is something that's clearly the whole community is enraged. And you knew that before the trial started. So, I mean, this is this is very upsetting. [01:38:07] Speaker 1: Wow. Wow, Ashley. It's a four inch knife. He only used it one time. [01:38:14] Speaker 8: Yeah, I don't think that the family of Mr. Metcalf would really take kindly to that. He only used it one time, but he was so lethal that he only had to use it one time. I mean, that's just an awful argument. Now, I agree with him that I wish there were cameras in the courtroom, because then I think we wouldn't be having a lot of these debates that we're having, because we'd actually be able to see that the jury got it right with our own eyes. But, you know, the fact that he's a defense lawyer and he is shocked at a three hour verdict, I'm not sure how many cases he's trying, because that's not unheard of. Three hours is not that fast. This was not a tough case. They're not weighing fingerprint evidence. It's not a whodunit. It's not an identity. We're not talking about DNA. They didn't have thousands of witnesses to debate over. I mean, it was pretty open and shut. So if you think about it, so three hours, you know, they want to get lunch. They've got to vote on who's the foreperson. That takes maybe an hour or so. They're going to go around and take a vote or two and then maybe talk. But three hours, that's that's actually a long time. [01:39:06] Speaker 1: It's a very good point. I want to tell you, Imran, that Dominique Alexander, we have more from him, which I'm I am going to tell you about in a second. But I do want I do want you to know this about this guy who was hired by the Anthony family to represent them. He has a history reading here from the Daily Mail. I'm sorry, the Daily Caller. We've also reported this independently in the past. He has a history of criminal accusations and sentences. He was arrested in 2019 on a felony charge of family violence after his partner accused him of trying to strangle her. KXAS-TV reported citing court documents. His partner later signed an affidavit just prior to a grand jury indictment saying that she wanted no further part in the prosecution on account of how the cops handled the case. The charges were later dropped. Dallas Morning News reported. The activist also was arrested in 2009 for causing serious head injuries to the two year old child of his then girlfriend, per the Dallas Observer. While Alexander initially claimed the baby fell off the couch while he was babysitting, an investigator said a doctor reported the severity of the injuries did not match up with that excuse, quote, the injuries are acute and likely occurred around the time that his girlfriend's son started to have symptoms like being unresponsive. Without more adequate history of trauma, complainant's injuries are more consistent with abusive head trauma and child physical abuse. Alexander confessed to shaking and hitting the baby with an object, according to court records obtained by the Dallas Morning News. He pleaded guilty in 2011. The judge sentenced him to probation. He was sentenced in 2016 to five years in prison for violating probation multiple times, but served only eight days due to the probation counting toward his sentence. He was indicted once again on felony theft charges that were increased due to a 2013 forgery conviction, citing court records. He pleaded guilty in 2021 and was sentenced to two days in jail. OK, before I give you his latest soundbite, I mean, honestly, you tell me, Amran, somebody like that walks into your office and says, I didn't do the shoplifting. Like, I need you to represent me. I swear this is all made up. And your reaction is what? [01:41:22] Speaker 9: Well, Megan, listen, it's not going to be good for business if I say I'm not necessarily take my potential criminal defender. [01:41:28] Speaker 1: But you're not going to paint him as a choir boy. [01:41:31] Speaker 9: Well, it's questionable. I'll say that it's definitely questionable. And it's a track record, right? But, you know, he comes into the office. He says that. But now he's out here on the main stage putting certain information before the public. And what you just read out to the listeners and viewers, Megan, says it all, right? He has a history. He has a checkered past there. He has convictions. So I'm not talking about just merely allegations with some of the points that you just made. And what would we do with that in the court of law if you had a witness with that, right? You'd attack their credibility, right? And that's what you have to think about when you hit her. [01:42:13] Speaker 1: And that's what we have to do with him in the court of public opinion. I'd love to get in front of this guy. I'm dying for one of the reporters. I urge you, any of the reporters who are down there, you get up in his face and you say, why did you beat a baby? Why did you beat a baby? Why did you plead guilty? Why should we listen to you when you beat infants? Why don't we try that? Let's see how that goes over with Mr. Alexander. Here's his latest messaging. Take a listen. [01:42:40] Speaker 7: An all, all white jury convicted him in two to three hours. We know that they did not approve their case. They are currently sentencing Carmelo Anthony. But we know that the Next Generation Action Network put the first $10,000 towards an appellate attorney. And we will fight Collin County like hell. I respected this process. I allowed and called for peace in this process. But black America should be very upset about what went on today. [01:43:23] Speaker 8: He's got a forgery conviction, Megan. [01:43:27] Speaker 1: Yeah, but they're trying to create a powder keg down there. He's trying to create a powder keg. [01:43:33] Speaker 11: It's not going to work. I mean, I just find it funny. I'm not sure exactly what the relationship is. But, you know, I always said in the practice of law, clients tend to reflect their lawyers and lawyers tend to reflect their clients. The fact that this is the best spokesperson they can come out to protest the innocence of Carmelo Anthony. I mean, that tells you everything you need to know is that nobody with a conscience and with the absence of a criminal record would do it themselves. But first of all, like Ashley said, I do wish also they had had cameras in the courtroom. It would have avoided a lot of this. I don't chalk it up to the imbecility of the judge, but rather maybe, you know, they wanted to respect the victims in the process. But it would have resolved a lot of questions and assuaged a lot of concerns. The three hours also, like Ashley says, there's no there's no OJ Simpson. I didn't do it in this case. What there is, is I did it. I admit that I did it, not alleged. And the only question is whether or not I was in sincere fear of imminent bodily harm when I stabbed him in the chest. And it is just so preposterous to say, well, he only stabbed him once. And if the argument had been from the beginning, you know, I just flipped out show mercy on me. Then you could say, well, you know, the death penalty was not on the table here, but I think morally it could have been. Then you could say, well, then we can discuss attenuating circumstances, remorse, all that other stuff. He compounded his murder by trying to blame it on the victim and still asserting that now further compounds his own guilt. And there's just there was no room for any doubt as to whether or not he did it. And by all accounts, there was no room for any doubt as to whether or not it was legitimate, proportionate self-defense. It was murder straight up. And he got what he deserved. [01:45:06] Speaker 1: That is to say, this is why some of these antics that we're seeing outside of the courthouse and from commentators on Court TV. This is why this jury does need to be sequestered, sequestered if it takes overnight tonight, Ashley, because we just got word from inside the courthouse. That the judge is going to let them deliberate until six. I'm actually not sure if that's central time or East Coast time. And then he's going to send them back at central. OK, so 6 p.m. Central time back to the hotel if they need more time so that they don't go home and they don't turn on their TV and see this nonsense coming at them. [01:45:45] Speaker 8: Right. I'd be worried that people may even go to their houses. I mean, it's not that hard to get this information. I know they've tried to protect the jurors, but I would be terrified of that, you know, with what we're seeing outside of the courtroom. And I just, you know, I agree with everyone. I cannot understand why they chose this guy to be the mouthpiece of this case. It just makes absolutely no sense. We're not talking. That's who they are. I mean, we're not talking about someone who was, you know, in a protest and has a disorderly conduct. And you're like, OK, whatever. I mean, we're talking about someone who has been arrested at least, I think, when you were naming it probably five times. I mean, I don't know. How many times have you ever had the police called on you, Megan? Me? None. I mean, most people go through there and say, right, I'm pretty sure everyone here, never, you know. So most people have gone through our entire lives without having the police at our house, without ever being arrested. And he's had it, what, five, six, seven times? And that's who they found to be their spokesperson for, you know, this entire case and this entire movement that they're trying to do. It's just it's really bad judgment, but I think that sort of pervades this entire case with the family and their judgment and, you know, Mr. Anthony's judgment. I mean, all of their judgment is just it's a tragedy. And it's really, I think, led to this outcome that could have been avoided if he had pled guilty, if he had taken responsibility, if he had owned up to his mistakes. I think we could have seen, you know, something less tragic than what we see here. [01:47:03] Speaker 1: Well, and not only that, but Viva, you just said I wanted to ask you something, a follow up. You said they tried to blame Austin Metcalfe for his own demise. And it's true. Not only did they do that by saying, like, somehow he was the aggressor, but when the defense lawyer got up there and made his closing argument, he actually had the nerve to suggest that Austin Metcalfe threw himself on the knife, that there had actually been witness testimony suggesting he may have thrown himself on the knife, which is. Insulting. That's insulting to the jury. [01:47:39] Speaker 11: Well, it's insulting to the jury. It's insulting to the victim. It victimizes the family again. Yet he threw himself on the knife. It's like the Eminem lyrics. Yet she slipped and fell on his blank in order to explain her infidelity. It is, it's atrocious. And again, it compounds the guilt and the guilty intent that they go to such lengths to try to blame the victim. And calling Austin a thug and say, oh, he was a 220 pound. He knew jujitsu. And so this kid was so scared, so scared that you don't just back up and go away. And if you think Austin assaulted you when he touched your shoulder, go get the cops. I made the joke. Had Carmelo Anthony gone to the cops and said, Austin assaulted me when he pushed me in my shoulder, they would have laughed the kid out of the room. And yet somehow he thinks that that assault, which I don't think ever existed in the first place, even if it's simple assault, justifies lethal force. It's not just that he made bad decisions at the time. Compounding them and then suggesting that it was Austin's fault and then racializing it right after. I mean, that evidence is the nefarious intent of the kid and I dare say of the family as well. And I don't like to bring in the family for the acts of their kids. But, you know, raising three quarters of a million dollars on the basis of racism, when you know damn well what your kid did, and then playing along with victimizing the victim yet again, it shows ill intent throughout the entire family. [01:49:00] Speaker 1: Yes. And not only did he do that to Metcalf and his family, the victim, but he smeared the kids at Memorial High School, too. Their witnesses, that their lawyers put on, tried to say that it was a mob that surrounded Carmelo Anthony, you know, like, we're going to get him, making them look like a bunch of thugs who were going to gang up in some untold numbers on one kid, this one poor kid in the middle of this mob. And that was all lies. The prosecutor disproved that by playing the video. Thank God there was a video. Apparently it was grainy. We haven't yet seen it. They haven't released all of this. But that showed that nothing of the sort happened. The only time a crowd gathered was after Carmelo stabbed Austin. And then, yeah, a crowd gathered. Some people ran. Some people ran to Austin's, you know, side to try to help him, his brother among them. But this is like, these were lies that they were desperate. There was a defense to be made. You know, as you guys have pointed out, he could have taken the stand. He could have said, I did not. I was overwhelmed. He was bigger than I thought he was. When he laid hands on me, I got scared. And I realized I'd gotten myself into a lot of trouble. And in an instant, I reacted. And I greatly regret it. You know, it was a heat of a passion kind of thing. You're setting up the involuntary manslaughter at best or just some sort of manslaughter. But he didn't do any of that. They attacked the Metcalfe family. They attacked Austin Metcalfe posthumously. They besmirched the high school students who were there and traumatized by what Anthony did. They played the race card at every turn. They took people's money and went and lived in a mansion. The lawyer sucked. That's what happened here. And now I don't know what this jury is going to hand down for a sentence. We're going to wrap it because we're not going to stay on the air for another two hours waiting for this. But this just in from Marianne Martinez, the Daily Mail. Back in court after a break, lawyers and judge have been working on the charging document the jury in the trial will be using to determine his sentence. And so what would you expect that to sound like, Imran? Like what what basically are they going to tell the jury? [01:51:19] Speaker 9: Well, certainly they're going to read the the sentencing, the aspects of the sentencing to the jury and the charges that he's convicted and what he would be facing. They're going to send that jury back and they're going to render a decision on the sentencing phase here. Right. So this is this is the fact that they kept this jury is happening fast. The judge wants to keep this going. And I think the judge wants to keep this going because there's a real chance that there's going to be events with it between now and let's say tomorrow that could affect the judgment of these jurors. So I would expect that the judge wants to keep this going, that want the sentence to come down rather expeditiously and for the safety of not only those jurors, but everyone around that courthouse to clear that courthouse and move on. [01:52:11] Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's the right move to have them sequestered, you know, just in case we certainly hope that that's what's going to happen, that they will remain sequestered if they need the night to think on this, to study this case. But I don't know. You tell me, Ashley, what do you what's a fair sentence for this crime? [01:52:32] Speaker 8: I wouldn't be surprised if they make a decision tonight. And, you know, what happens that the jury charges on these types of things are aggravating circumstances versus mitigating circumstances. So what they're going to tell the jury they have to do is they have to consider the aggravation, you know, how awful it was, you know, any prior instances where maybe he has some prior instances where he's done something wrong. That's what you consider an aggravation. And then in mitigation is, you know, his mom's statement doesn't sound like we heard a whole lot of mitigation. So if there's not a lot, I don't think the jury is going to take a whole lot of time coming to their, you know, coming to their decision. And it's it's Texas. I mean, they this kid went to trial. He did not beg for mercy. He did not take the stand in his own defense. He did not admit to wrongdoing and say he was sorry and begged for forgiveness. And I think because of that, I think they're going to give him every day they can. [01:53:22] Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what I would do. We're going to go out the air now and await news on the sentencing, which we will bring to you all tomorrow. Thank you all so much for coming on on such short notice and offering your expertise. A pleasure to see you all. We appreciate it. Thanks to all of you for listening and tuning in. And God rest, Austin Metcalf. And God bless this jury as it wrestles with yet another tough decision. We'll see you tomorrow. We'll see you tomorrow. [01:53:55] Speaker ?: We'll see you tomorrow. Thank you.