Stunning Twist in Karmelo Anthony Case as Killer Begs for Appeal

[00:00:00] Chris Stewart: Carmelo Anthony is now locked away inside a remote Texas prison staring down a future that could keep him behind bars until he is well into his 50s. A jury branded him a murderer, but now a new twist is unfolding. Anthony has already filed an appeal and it's setting the stage for the next chapter of one of the most fiercely debated cases in the country. And I'll show you the filing and the arguments potentially a legal team could bring to try and unravel his conviction. Now, outside of prison, the controversy surrounding the story refuses to die. Was justice served or is there more to the story? Carmelo's parents, they're fighting. And also the judge who oversaw the trial is now speaking out. And he had an unexpected message about Carmelo Anthony that's turning some heads. We're on the case presented by Law & Crime. I'm Chris Stewart. It took the jury less than three hours to find Carmelo Anthony guilty of murder and then another roughly three hours to determine that his punishment would be 35 years in prison. Now, on one hand, that sent a strong message that the 12 jurors who saw this trial, they didn't really buy the argument that Carmelo's defense was making. And now there are some new questions being raised and especially being raised by Carmelo's parents about how the defense approached this case that we're going to talk about here in a moment because this story is only gaining steam and getting more attention since the verdict earlier this week. And I'm going to update you on everything that is developing right now. And Jesse Weber, host of Sidebar here on Law & Crime, he's going to be with me here in just a moment to talk through how this trial went and what an appeal potentially could look like. Y'all know y'all wrong. Come on. [00:01:50] Speaker 2: I swear to God, I'm sick of this s**t. I'm tired of this. [00:01:53] Chris Stewart: Now, this is video here of the group that was outside the courthouse in McKinney, Texas, the day of the verdict earlier this week, where we did see some tension. I also want to show you this. This is the new mugshot that we received of Carmelo Anthony since he is now in state prison in Texas. You can see in this mugshot, he has his head shaved. Now, we have learned that Carmelo will begin serving his prison sentence here, the Wallace Pack unit in Navasota, Texas. It's roughly three and a half hours away from where he stabbed Austin Metcalf to death at that track meet in Frisco outside Dallas in April of 2025. What we know about this prison, it's all males. It is roughly 1,500 inmates, and it's a minimum security prison. Now, Carmelo Anthony has wasted no time in filing a notice of appeal, and we found a line in the document pretty surprising. Now, this is the notice of appeal. It's filed in Collin County District Court. That's where the trial took place. And in the notice, it says, quote, I am penniless, destitute, and indigent person, too poor to employ counsel to represent me on the appeal, and too poor to pay for or give security of the statement of facts and a true copy thereof herein. So, Anthony wants a court-appointed attorney for his appeal. And at 19, I mean, you kind of understand. I mean, he's just graduated high school. He's legally an adult. He's now a prison inmate. So, it's not a surprise that he doesn't have the money to afford an attorney. But it also raises some questions about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that was raised for his criminal defense. And criminal defense is not cheap. Now, initially, there was a fundraiser last year around the time of his arrest that was put up on GoFundMe. But that was quickly taken down because GoFundMe has a policy where you can't raise money for people who are accused of violent crimes. Give, send, go does not have that policy. But after Anthony's guilty verdict, in that murder trial, the site brought his fundraiser down. And the reason they said was, quote, the fundraiser was to promote pretrial needs. And those funds were dispersed over the past year for lawful purposes, including legal defense and family relocation. With that stated purpose now complete, the fundraiser has been closed. So, the notice of appeal tells us that Anthony would like a court-appointed attorney for his appeal, but it doesn't tell us yet why he is appealing. What would the grounds be for an appeal? We do know, though, through some interviews that his parents gave to two outlets that we know about, after the verdict, they were not happy with the defense of their son. I will tell you, we have reached out to Carmelo Anthony's parents to come on the show as well. But I do want to run through some of the quotes that they gave in these interviews. Now, in the interviews, they have stood by their son. Not a surprise. They say they do not believe that he intended to kill Austin Metcalf. Quote, my son is no murderer. My son didn't intend to hurt anyone. My son was defending himself. That's Carmelo's mom, Kayla Hayes, telling CBS Texas. Now, Carmelo's parents also say they believe the trial was flawed and unfair. Quote, everyone actually lied on the stand, says Carmelo's mom. Now, there was another interview they gave with the Breakfast Club, Power 105.1 FM. It was posted to YouTube. And there, Carmelo's parents talked about how they would have potentially approached the legal side of the case differently. They said that they do not believe their son got a fair trial. Quote, we got comfortable with the instructions that we were told. We were told not to say nothing. We were told not to do this, so we followed all the instructions that we were told. We were told, don't do this. Don't talk to this person. It was all this. And look what happened to my son, said Carmelo's dad, Drew Anthony, in that interview. Now, Carmelo's dad also said that his son was told that they should not make this case about race. And that was by their attorney. But he said that he believed that race played a role in the outcome. He said the family was advised to get a white attorney. It's unclear who gave that advice. Now, the family also raised some concerns in that interview about there not being a black person on the jury. We had a reporter in the courtroom throughout this trial, Cody Thomas of Court TV, and he reported that the jury was mostly white, wasn't all white, but mostly white. And there were three Asian women and one person who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent and one other woman of color. The rest of the jury, they were all men and they were all white. So in the trial, the defense also called six witnesses. That is compared to the roughly, I think it was 21 witnesses that the state called as they presented their case. And in the Breakfast Club interview, the parents said they don't know why their attorney didn't call more witnesses. The Anthony family also says that they raised concerns with their defense attorney during the trial. They say after the trial, they were given a, quote, corporate answer by their defense about how things went. They didn't elaborate more on what corporate answer means. But they also said that they are looking for a new attorney for the appeal of their son's guilty verdict in this murder trial. In the interview, the family was also asked, I think, a pretty big question and one that many people, no matter what you feel about the verdict, are wondering, why did Carmelo Anthony not testify? Carmelo's dad said, quote, based on everything, he didn't need nothing because everything they said when it's self-defense, they have to prove it. They never proved it. Now, it is unclear if it was ever in the plans for Carmelo to testify in this trial and whether it was the attorney who gave the advice that he shouldn't. But we have seen in many high-profile self-defense cases, and Jesse's going to join me here in a moment, we're going to talk about a couple of them, where the defendant does take the stand and it can be the biggest moment of a trial and be the difference between innocence and guilt. And now the judge who oversaw this case is also speaking out. Judge John Roach of the 296th District Court says that he stands by the verdict that was found in his courtroom. He spoke to WFAA-TV in Dallas, and he said in this interview something about Carmelo Anthony that we weren't expecting considering the guilty verdict in this murder trial. Roach said that he stands by his decision, as well, not to allow cameras in the courtroom, saying, I know I made people mad, but I'm not here to make them happy either. Now, some had speculated, mostly online, that Roach had some kind of prior relationship with the Metcalf family, and he went on the record denying that, saying he had never met members of the Metcalf family prior to this trial, said he wouldn't have known Jeff Metcalf, Austin's dad, had he walked up to him on the street before all of this happened. And then he was asked whether he believes the jury reached the right verdict. And he said, quote, yes, they did, because they were picked based upon the law. They listened to the facts. It happened in this courtroom, and they got a verdict, Roach said. And he also said this about Carmelo Anthony. Quote, he seems like a nice young man who committed a crime, and he understands today more than any day before the consequences of committing a crime like he did. But again, Carmelo Anthony will be roughly 54 years old if he serves his entire 35-year sentence, and he will be eligible for parole in about half that, so 17 and a half years. Join us now to talk more about this is the host of Sidebar here on Law & Crime, Jesse Weber. You can also catch him on Jesse Weber Live on News Nation. Good to have you, Jesse. Thanks for doing this. I know we both, we've been covering this case. You look at the family of Carmelo Anthony, and incredibly emotional, understandably so, with everything that happened, and they're not happy with the defense and how things went. And you certainly see from some of the testimony some of the things that I think they would have wished they had done differently, but is there enough there when you look at this for them potentially to file an appeal based on the fact that they just didn't like the counsel that they got? [00:09:44] Speaker 2: It's a great question. First of all, Chris, thanks for having me. I've made it. I've made it. I'm on the case. Look at this. I know. Great. My debut. Look, everybody has a right to an appeal, and everybody should, every criminal defendant should file an appeal unless, of course, they pled guilty, right? Now, I think they have some fair concerns. It's very difficult for us, even though we've covered the trial and we've, you know, there were no cameras there, but we read the testimony. We tried to get as much reporting about it as possible. It's sometimes hard for us to look out and say, criticize the prosecution, criticize the defense. Here's one of those cases where I think there's legitimate questions. I think there's legitimate questions. Now, on one hand, I'm skeptical because I could say, even if he were to get a new trial, and we'll talk about the appellate arguments, even if he were to get a new trial, would he even be successful in getting a not guilty verdict? I can't sit here and tell you that because I think this was a really, really tough case for the defense. You know, number one, whenever you have a situation of self-defense and the defendant uses a deadly weapon and the victim does not have a weapon, that in and of itself presents a challenge. But I think when you talk about what the issues are for appeal, I mean, there's a number that come to my mind. Number one, was it in the right county? Should there have been a change of venue? Number two, of course, it's the big issue about jury selection, right? You're talking about a jury that had no black jurors. Now, that in and of itself doesn't mean that an appellate court is going to overturn the convictions here. You have to show a couple of things. One thing you'd have to show is that the prosecution improperly, illegally dismissed jurors or tried to excuse jurors on the basis of race. We call that a Batson challenge. The court believes that. That could be grounds to overturn the conviction. But you have to show that. It's not so simple. It does become a question also, were the jurors themselves biased in some way? Would they be open to speaking to defense counsel about what the deliberations were like or what their motivations were? Do they do research into these jurors and look at maybe did they not disclose something during the jury selection process that they should have? So I think the jury selection issue is also going to be something for an appeal. And then there are moments during the trial that the defense will say it was unfair. You know, one of the things that I'm sure they're going to bring up is during the jury instructions, they lost. They wanted to instruct the jury. They didn't want an instruction to the jury. Jury, if you believe that Carmelo Anthony was the aggressor, you cannot find that he acted in self-defense. They believe that shouldn't have been what the jury was instructed, and they were. So there's going to be opportunities there. But during the course of the trial, there were a number of things the defense did or did not do that raised a question. I mean, Chris, do you have an understanding about why he brought a knife that day? I know they were really keen about saying the knife was a certain length and maybe, you know, he had a right to have it, but still not clear why he brought it. I think some of their witnesses, at least one in particular, the defense called, wasn't the most helpful to their case. So, and you also have a family who's, I mean, this is a tragedy on a number of different levels, but you have a family who now lost the son. They, you know, one, obviously the Metcalfs lost their son, but also, and their brother, but also you have Carmelo Anthony who's going to spend potentially 35 years in prison over what happened here. And you know, they're angry and yeah, it's not uncommon to point the blame at the defense attorney. [00:13:13] Chris Stewart: No. And, and I think, you know, there, there are a couple of questions like on day one, like Cody Thomas from court TV was, was our guy in the courtroom. And like, I remember on day one, I was like, you know, one of the big questions for this trial is why did he have a knife? And I was shocked that by the end of four days of testimony, and I think it was a total of 27 witnesses. Like the only real answer we got was, well, it's just not illegal in Texas. If you have a blade under five and a half inches, it's against school policy, but it's not illegal to have it. And I just feel like the jury might've needed a little bit more. Maybe he, you know, one thing I bring up, they talked about in opening statements, this was a kid who loved to go camping. Like maybe he just, that's his bag when he goes camping, he has a knife. Like that was never brought up. And I was kind of surprised about that. And then the other part too, because there were six witnesses for the defense that were called and drew Anthony, who was Carmelo's dad said in an interview with the breakfast club that he didn't really know why more witnesses weren't called. And for people who aren't attorneys, I'm not an attorney. You sit back and you're like, you know, it's in, in his words, it's like, it's not my department, but I was surprised that maybe there could have been like, and it's easy to Monday morning quarterback it, but like a use of force expert that could have come in and challenged some of the testimony potentially from like a medical examiner. Cause we do see in trials, like one, I thought a very different case, but it's like Karen Reed, one of the more successful defenses we've seen in recent years, like expert testimony for the defense was huge there. And in this situation you had some witnesses who may or may not have seen things. I just felt like there could have been someone, something more there, you know, [00:14:50] Speaker 2: I hear you, you also have to have those witnesses, like, were they going to have witnesses who were adamant? Carmelo Anthony didn't do anything wrong here. He was not the aggressor. I watched it with my own eyes. He was being attacked. He had no choice. I mean, were they going to have those witnesses? Could they find a use of force expert to suggest that using that knife in that situation was justified? I mean, I look, the defense's closing argument did their best, arguably did their best to try to suggest, you know, what's he supposed to do? Walk away when you have these bigger guys around him, his life was in danger. He had no choice. You know, I think the thing that might have helped Carmelo Anthony or one of them, you know, I, I wasn't surprised he was convicted. I did want to know if it was going to be manslaughter or murder, but one of the things I thought was okay, he had this knife, one direct shot into Metcalfe's chest, heart, which was a savage, savage stabbing. But at the same time, it wasn't like multiple stabbings. It wasn't like he kept going and people had to remove, you know, him off of Metcalfe. And then he just dropped it and admitted what he did. So there were elements there where you could argue potentially self-defense, but in terms of calling more witnesses, look, I don't know, but I do also question, I do also wonder from a strategic point of view, did they feel that whoever they thought about calling, maybe they weren't going to be very helpful to their narrative? And could they find the correct expert that would help their defense? I mean, again, as we talked about, at least one of their witnesses didn't go so well. I mean, this was a witness who apparently, I was listening to Cody Thomas talk about it, who had more of a relationship, a defense witness had more of a relationship with the prosecutor than the defense attorney. Right. And that ultimately said, if I remember correctly, that Carmelo Anthony was the aggressor. So it does, you can't just get the witnesses you want. You can't just make them out of thin air. You're handed what you're handed. And I do wonder, even if you bring in any defense attorney out there, you name whoever you think is the best defense attorney, could you have gotten a not guilty? Could you have gotten a guilty on manslaughter, which would have been, as we know, it's a lesser charge, less time in prison potentially. Mm-hmm . But that's a question. And if you want, I could also talk about whether or not he should have taken the stand. [00:17:05] Chris Stewart: Well, and that was going to be my next question, because that was a question that was asked of the Anthony family in this Breakfast Club interview. Like, why didn't he take the stand? And Drew Anthony, Carmelo's dad said, quote, "Based on everything, he didn't need nothing because everything they said, when it's self-defense, they have to prove it. They never proved it." And it's unclear whether that was the advice of counsel that he shouldn't take the defense or whoever made the decision that they would not put Carmelo Anthony on the stand. But in a lot of these self-defense cases that we see, Jesse, you do see the defendant take the stand because they can talk about being scared. They can talk about what they saw in that moment. And you just didn't get that in this particular trial. [00:17:48] Speaker 2: Let's be clear. It's the defendant's right. It's only the defendant's choice, the defendant's right. They're not pressured into taking the stand. They're not compelled to take the stand. It's their choice. They have a conversation with their defense attorneys about the advantages and the risks. But it's Carmelo Anthony's decision. Now, a couple of ways to look at it, right? So the father's correct. I mean, they don't have to prove anything. It's the prosecution who has the burden of proof. And you try to poke holes in it. At the same time, a defense attorney's opening statement and the defense attorney's closing argument is not considered evidence in the case. You need actual evidence for the jury to determine what was self-defense. And under the law, self-defense has to be reasonable. It has to be proportional. It has to be immediately necessary. So I believe you want to talk about what could have potentially changed the verdict? Him taking the stand. Because like you said, you have to go in the shoes of the defendant and understand under those circumstances, what was he feeling? And look, I don't think I've ever heard Carmelo Anthony speak. But if you look at the reporting, he was apparently emotional and shaking when the verdict was read. If he went on the stand and he recounted how he was feeling in that moment, he would have had to convince the jury that he did this, not out of anger, not because he was angry at Austin Metcalf, but because he was in fear for his life. Could he have done that? Maybe. But what's the risk? He's a young kid and he is going to be faced up against an experienced prosecutor under intense cross-examination. So the theory could have been that if he went up there, he would have collapsed under that questioning and it would have gone really, really bad. I mean, you want to compare? Look at Kyle Rittenhouse. Different case, right? Right. We also had video in that case where you could at least understand. I mean, you could disagree with the verdict, but you could look at the case and say, well, I saw the video of him being chased and ultimately attacked. I think that was a key component. But he got on the stand and explained what was going on and why was he in fear for his life. And you look at him and he was like kind of baby faced when he did it. I think that has an effect. I think that has a factor. And if this is a retrial, Carmelo Anthony will be a bit older. But will he be in a position to recount this and want to recount this and believe this is his option to maybe get a not guilty verdict or manslaughter, not murder? It's a tough question. It's very hard to predict. But this is why in self-defense cases more than any other case, even though defense attorneys say, you know, they recommend to the clients don't take the stand. You're opening up yourself to a ton of intense cross-examination risk. Self-defense cases may be the exception. Yeah. [00:20:28] Chris Stewart: And one thing I kept thinking about as the trial went on, because we heard a lot about tent culture and track culture and about, you know, how did Carmelo Anthony wind up under this tent? And apparently there was someone there who was a mutual friend who had like waved him over. And, you know, the defense tried to argue that like, you know, it's a social thing when you go to a track meet. There's so much downtime between events. And he saw somebody that he knew that person brought him into the tent. And then apparently the Metcalf brothers didn't like it. And then that led to this altercation. And then you had the prosecution saying that it is uncommon for people to go under other teams tents. And so the Metcalfs, you know, they were kind of standing up for their team to get Carmelo out. And then that led to this altercation. I wonder just how much of why he was under the tent actually mattered. And when it comes to a self-defense case where the prosecution says you can meet a shove with a shove, but you can't meet a shove with a stab. And like, when do you enter the point of the interaction where any of this actually matters to Carmelo being, if you believe this, in the right to stab Austin Metcalf? [00:21:35] Speaker 2: Generally speaking, the aggressor in a confrontation cannot claim self-defense. The aggressor in the situation will not be entitled to that. And these become very fact-specific, minute-by-minute interactions. I mean, and so the importance of that is, did he start it? Okay, no. Maybe he didn't start it because he went under the tent, had every right to go under the tent. He was minding his own business. Okay. So then you create the narrative, okay, maybe it's the Metcalf brothers who were the aggressors in that situation. And maybe that's the case. However, it can flip. It can flip based on what, you know, and even if they were aggressive with him and they put their hands on him. Okay, so now he has a right to defend himself, but it has to be proportional and reasonable. Perhaps he had a right to push back. Maybe he had a right to punch. Maybe he had a right to wrestle them. But taking a deadly weapon out in that instance, if he's not, you know, the counter-argument is what do you expect? You want him to wait to get punched? You want him to wait to get attacked? He was surrounded, you know, standing over him. But at the same time, there's also testimony that Metcalf said, I'm not going to fight you. So it becomes very fact specific. And it's a lot based on the credibility of the witnesses about what you think happened. And sometimes the aggressor, the aggressor role can change. I mean, I'll give you a great example of this. There was a shooting in Florida. I covered it on my other show, a prime crime. It was a parking lot dispute. Really, really sad case. It's the Michael Draca case. I don't know if you're familiar with it, Chris. But it was a dispute in a Florida parking lot. Guy comes over. This guy, Michael Draca, he sees Marquise McLaughlin. That's, yeah, Marquise McLaughlin and his girlfriend. They pull up into the parking lot. Marquise goes into the convenience store's girlfriend's in the car. And Michael Draca, a complete stranger, goes up to the girlfriend. He's like, you're parked in a handicapped spot. You shouldn't have a right. You shouldn't be here. They're getting into a whole tussle. She allegedly says to him, my boyfriend's going to beat you up. And it's like caught on surveillance footage. And you see them arguing. And, you know, who's the aggressor there? Well, you could say Draca. So at that point, you see Marquise McLaughlin exit the convenience store, walk over to Michael Draca, push him, push him right onto the ground. So there you say, okay, Marquise McLaughlin, he started. Physical confrontation pushes this guy to the ground. Michael Draca, in the video, takes out a gun, okay, points it at Marquise McLaughlin. This is how quickly the case changed. If he just took it out and fired, he may have been found not guilty. But because when he takes out the gun, you can see Marquise McLaughlin actually take a second, back up, and then Michael Draca fires. And the court believed, and the argument was, the jury believed, and the argument was, is that split second, he wasn't a danger to you anymore. You waited a second, you just fired anyway, and that was not self-defense. So it becomes very, very specific about when you could use deadly force. And by the way, that's the way the law should be. We can't have a society where we're allowed to use deadly force because, in more of a liberal kind of stance, it has to be necessary. It has to be immediate, and it can be very difficult to assess. And at this point, you know, this jury didn't believe that this was a self-defense. They didn't believe it was manslaughter. They believed it was murder. If he gets a new trial, who knows? [00:25:01] Chris Stewart: Yeah, who knows? And just one last thing that I was, and apparently this is just how it goes in Texas, just the speed at which we went from verdict that he was guilty of murder to then within the hour, his mom is on the stand pretty much just pleading for mercy with the jury. And then they rest. Three hours after that, they had between, I believe it was five and 99 years. You know, and you have these same jurors who, you know, a week earlier didn't even know that they were going to be on the jury for this trial. And then suddenly they're determining how many years he's going to spend in prison. And, you know, again, that's just how things go in Texas. I was just surprised at the speed at which it went from, you know, the end of the trial itself to then going through the punishment phase as quickly as it did. [00:25:50] Speaker 2: No, you're 100% right. We usually don't always see that, right? Like sometimes there could be weeks. It could be a month down the road that you have sentencing because sometimes there's a pre-sentencing investigation. But look, Texas does it a little bit differently. I think there's a, I wonder if that'll be an issue for an appeal. You're talking about raw emotion at that moment. You know, the defense would maybe make the argument that this wasn't justified. It wasn't fair. Although I, correct me if I'm wrong, Chris. Didn't both sides waive opening statements in that? I think they did, right? Yeah, I believe they did, yeah. So, you know, that could be tricky and maybe, you know, Carmelo Anthony's family would say, look, another example of why defense counsel had a problem here. But yeah, and look, that's a tough decision because some people were wondering, like some people who were fully in the camp that, you know, Carmelo Anthony should be found guilty. This is, there's no excuse. They thought he should get 99 years. They thought he should spend the rest of his life in prison. There are others who say, you know, 35 years. Now, when's he going to get out? I was listening to Dan Cogdell, who's a Texas lawyer. He's all on social media. Interesting guy. I think we've had him on once before. He doesn't think that Carmelo Anthony is going to get out in 17 and a half years. Like, you have to serve half your sentence. He usually thinks it's probably going to be a little bit more, like probably 20, 22 years. But just think about that. That's a long time in prison. Yes, he'll get out, you know, potentially in his 40s. He has a life to live. But just think about how much time that is for a young man who, you know, made a decision that ruined his life. [00:27:24] Chris Stewart: It is. And I mean, it's sometimes I think with sentencing too, like when we cover it, you know, you can jump from like, oh, 20 to 35 years. You know, and it's like, you're talking about that is so much time. And, you know, he's 19 years old today and he's going to serve pretty much what has been his entire life on the outside, at least to that. You know, we get lost sometimes, I think. [00:27:44] Speaker 2: But just to be clear, I mean, this was a crime. This was a murder. This was a 100%. Yeah. I mean, the Metcalfs lost. I forget. I think it was the prosecutor who said, Austin's never going to get married. He's never going to have a job. He's never going to have children. Like the family lost this. He was in the prime of his life. And this was a senseless situation. It should have never happened. They not only have to navigate the grief, they have to navigate the legal situation. And they have to navigate a lot of this conversation. I mean, this is a case that has really brought up a lot of different points. There's been a lot of strong feelings about it one way or another. And now they have to navigate that as well. So it's a difficult situation for both families. But I just also wanted to call out what's going on for the Metcalf family, too. [00:28:28] Chris Stewart: A hundred percent. Because, I mean, they will always have that empty chair at holidays, you know, for the rest of their lives. You know, and eventually Carmelo Anthony, you know, likely will get out and still have, you know, a good amount of his life left. There's no doubt about it. You know, this was just, it was such a tragic case. And it is interesting now, post-Verdict, there seems to be more attention on it than there was over, you know, the course of the trial. Seems like it really grew. We'll see what happens. You know, of course, the Metcalf family will also have to deal with the potential of an appeal and how that, you know, will impact their lives as well. Jesse Weber, host of Sidebar here on Law & Crime. Really cool to be able to collab with you. Thanks for coming on, you know, taking the time. You know, of course, everybody can probably, if you're watching this video, just scroll up a little bit and you can see all of Jesse's episodes as well. Good to see you, Jesse. Good seeing you. Thanks so much for having me. [00:29:15] Speaker 2: You're doing a great job on the cases that you cover, including this one. I appreciate it. [00:29:19] Chris Stewart: That will do it for On The Case presented by Law & Crime. Subscribe to us on YouTube and Spotify. And we're also now streaming on Peacock. I'm Chris Stewart. We'll see you next time. [00:29:32] Speaker ?: Transcription by ESO. Translation by —