Texas teen Karmelo Anthony found guilty of murder, sentenced to prison

[00:00:00] Speaker ?: that's going to be a part of [00:00:01] Speaker 1: this case. It's going to be a part of this case. Welcome back into live now from Fox, and we are tracking the latest with that trial coming out of Texas, where we do have that verdict and sentencing and now into that trial where this coming from Fox News is ex account breaking Carmelo. Anthony has been sentenced to 35 years in prison. Anthony was found guilty of murder on Tuesday for the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf at a high school track police really grabbed the entire country by storm here. A lot of eyes on it across the world, and this is where we want to bring in Kelly Hyman, who is an attorney and legal analyst who is here to break down the latest with us. Kelly, thank you so much for being with us this morning. So can you break down the arguments of both sides here for us when it comes to the prosecution and defense as well? Which of the prosecution's arguments really could have been the deciding factor here for the jury? The [00:00:59] Kelly Hyman: case and they have the burden. What that means is they need to prove each element of the causes of action. And so the charge was murder and for the prosecution standpoint, in order to prove that they must prove that defendant intentionally or knowingly killed another person or intentionally caused them harm. Intent is really key from the defense standpoint. They they don't have to prove anything. They don't have to prove anything. They just have a defense and their defense was self-defense. But ultimately, based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor, the jury came back and convicted him of murder. [00:01:37] Speaker 1: And we do have here on this expo for the Fox News U.S., where it shows the new mug shot. Carmelo Anthony, photographed after conviction for murdering Austin Metcalf in the Texas track meet stabbing last year. The fatal attack happened in April 2025 at a high school athletic event. And Anthony has now been sentenced for the killing. And this is credit to the Collin County Sheriff's Office. So we know during the the court trial as well that there were potential reasons the jury opted for a murder conviction rather than a lesser charge of manslaughter. Could you break down the reasonings behind this as well? [00:02:21] Kelly Hyman: Sure. So the jury heard evidence and based on the evidence presented, they believe that the lesser charge of manslaughter shouldn't apply. And so what exactly is manslaughter? manslaughter is a reckless killing. But if we go to the regular murder that has the intent or knowing. And so based on multiple witnesses and testifying, the jury most likely thought that it wasn't in fact a manslaughter case, but it was in fact a murder case. And that's why based on the evidence presented that they believe that he should be charged with a higher charge. Now, it's important to remember from a sentencing standpoint, when you look at the murder charge, the sentencing could have been anywhere from five years to 99 years. Now, manslaughter is a lesser charge. Now, manslaughter is a lesser charge. And so what that means is if convicted, which he was convicted, then the sentencing would be lesser two years to potentially 20 years. So based on the fact that they determined that was murder, the manslaughter didn't apply. [00:03:29] Speaker 1: And when we look at the process of the jury deliberation when it comes to the sentencing, how does that look like when the jury is deliberating? Because the punishment could have been from five years to 99 years. How did the jury land on that 35 year mark? And how does that work as well when they decide parole as he would be eligible for? Parole after half that time is served. Sure. So Texas has an interesting way of handling things. So first, in fact, there's the guilty phase. And then once there is the guilty phase, then there's kind of like a mini trial where in fact each side can put on a penalty. [00:04:02] Kelly Hyman: And both sides waved they didn't have any type of opening statement. The prosecutor did not bring any witnesses, but the defense had his mother testify and basically asked for mercy on the court. So after hearing that the jury made a determination whether to give him five years or 99 years. Now, the factors in which the jury would look at, they would look at the fact that the age of the victim, also the age of the defendant. Now it's important to remember that he was 17 at the time. And so what that means is from a legal perspective that the death penalty and life in jail without the possibility of parole was not on the table. So they didn't have to deal with that. But considering the defendant's age, also his criminal record, his history, his grade point average, considering all the different factors. And it's important to remember that the 12 jurors, when making a determination on the exact amount, how long they must unanimously agree. So probably back in the jury room, there were discussions on what you think is fair between that time period, knowing that he was 17 at the time and potentially said, OK, he's 17 years old, 35. That puts him potentially in his 50s. But as you pointed out that there's a possibility of parole, but that's not available till half the term of the 35 years. And then at that point, then it could be considered. But it's also important to remember that most likely we're going to see appeals in this conviction. [00:05:57] Speaker 1: And what what would be the reasons behind these appeals here? We do hear that a lot when this is coming up, when we talk about appeals. Why is this case garnering that attention where this could be found in the appellate courts? [00:06:12] Kelly Hyman: There's a lot of reasons why cases are appealed. There could be some issues with jury instructions or some evidence that came in. But one of the key things that defendant really hit home on the fact that there was no African American jurors on the jury. And so when we look at the United States Constitution, you are supposed to have a trial by juries of your peers. But that doesn't mean if someone who is African American, all the jurors are African American. What it means is appears in your community. Now, there were three potential jurors, all three women who were African American teachers. Now, the defendant struck those potential jurors and said it was race neutral. The reasoning they decided to struck those three teachers was not based on their race. The defendants challenged that and asked, why are they being excluded? And they said because this happened in a school setting, they didn't believe the fact that these teachers would be appropriate. It's not based on their, their, that they're African American. The judge ultimately agreed with the prosecutor. But I could definitely see that issue going up on appeal to the appellate court about whether in fact that he had a fair trial based on the jury. [00:07:35] Speaker 1: And how would we see that play out in the appellate court? Because doesn't the prosecution and defense both have to agree on the jury? [00:07:48] Kelly Hyman: Well, they, yes and no. So you have a certain amount of strikes that you can make for juries and there's different reason to strike someone. You have peremptory strikes that you can do, but then you could also have for, for costs, some kind of reasoning that you base. But on, on, on this selection that when it deals with striking someone in this situation, the defendants were challenging that because they didn't agree with the fact that these, these people were being taken off the jury. So it's not in a sense that they have to necessarily agree. Each side gets a chance to strike potential jurors that they do not feel that are going to be fair and impartial. And so that's where this comes to play because the prosecution was striking these jurors and defendants thought or made the argument that the reason was based on their race. And where the prosecution said, no, in fact, it was race neutral, as I stated before about them being teachers. [00:08:56] Speaker 1: And if this were to be successful in the appellate court, would this trial just have to start all over again? How would that work? [00:09:03] Kelly Hyman: Potentially we, you know, we'd have to see how that plays out in the, in the court of law. So the, the defendants would file a notice of appeal with the court, which I'm surmising that they're going to file the notice of appeal, especially with the, the, the issue of the jurors and maybe some other issues during the trial, whether it's evidence come in or some kind of instruction that was given to the jury. And then once they do that, they, they file a brief, the, the defense will, the prosecution has an opportunity to respond, and then that will go up to the appellate court. The appellate court will review it and could potentially determine, yes, there is going to be a new trial or the, the appellate court could confirm the conviction. And that could potentially happen there. We'll have to kind of wait and see how this plays out. But this is not the end of this story for sure. [00:09:59] Speaker 1: And could you tell us a little bit about why this case seemed to garner so much national attention in this really, really sparked emotions outside of the courtroom like this is just some video after that verdict came in yesterday. Could you speak to why this case gathered so much attention beyond Texas? [00:10:20] Kelly Hyman: It's, it's, it's a, it's a tragic case and it's, it's a tragic case that, that happened in a school setting. Um, two young boys that had great aspirations. Um, the defendant had a 3.7, 3.8 grade point average. Um, the, the, the, um, Austin, the, the person that was, was stabbed was, was a football player. And so I believe that got a lot of the national attention because of the fact that this happened in a school setting and dealing with schools safety in dealing with bringing a knife, um, in the situation. And I, I think it's important to, to remember that it's a sad situation, uh, for, for, for both families. Um, one that, that, that lost, you know, their son and, and another one that's, that's potentially gonna spend, um, many years, um, in, in jail. [00:11:22] Speaker 1: And Kelly, we, we touched a lot of ground here on this case. Are there any other, uh, final thoughts or points that you'd like to make before we wrap this up? [00:11:30] Kelly Hyman: I think from a legal perspective, it's really important to remember that in our justice system that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Our justice system is not perfect. A lot of people have strong opinions about, about the verdict, um, whether they agree with it or disagree with it. But it's important to remember that based on the evidence presented, the jury, all 12 of them agreed that he should, in fact, be convicted. And they did not believe that the defense of self-defense was, in fact, justified. [00:12:11] Speaker 1: Kelly Hyman, thank you so much for joining us this morning. We really appreciate you breaking this all down for us. Great to be with you. Thank you. With that, we're bringing in this ex post here, courtesy of Fox News. This says the new mugshot Carmelo Anthony photographed after conviction for murdering Austin Metcalfe in a Texas track meet stabbing last year. The fatal attack happened in April 2025 at a high school athletic event, and Anthony has now been sentenced for the killing credit there to Collin County Sheriff's Office. With that, we do have to slide away for a quick two minute break. But when we come back, more coverage ahead.