It was clear almost from the start that Karmelo Anthony, who murdered Austin Metcalf at a Texas high school track meet, was seeking violent confrontation. He provoked the entire incident, had brought a knife to a venue where they were banned, and stabbed Metcalf quickly and readily. The blow was obviously of the type and in a place that ran a high probability of killing his victim.

Anthony was found guilty. But many people wanted to paint him as just having defended himself. It was always obvious this was not the case.

But now more has come out, and it paints an even worse picture of Anthony. Why is this emerging now? Anthony’s lawyers are seeking a new trial, plus the case is being used politically in the Senate race in Texas. Here’s Jonathan Turley on the matter:

The [original] criminal case was not a difficult one for the prosecution with overwhelming witness and video evidence of the stabbing. Anthony’s motion for a new trial is extremely weak, in my view, because it focuses on his decision not to testify (despite a record showing he made that decision knowingly and freely). At the same time, the case is now becoming a political issue with Democratic senatorial nominee James Talarico declaring that the case “prove[s] this system is not working for black Texans.”

More [my emphasis]:

New messages have surfaced showing that Anthony was threatening his former girlfriend and expressing violent ideations just hours before killing Metcalf.

Text messages allegedly include a picture of the knife he used in Metcalf’s killing. Anthony’s girlfriend, Valeria, went to the school on the morning of April 2, 2025, before he stabbed Metcalf. She reportedly told school officials that Anthony was stalking her after she broke up with him.

The evidence shows Anthony told her, “I’m low key on the verge” and “When I stab somebody I’m gonna lick their blood off the blade,” prosecutors alleged.

It seems that Anthony was planning something of the sort, and reveling in it. Literal bloodthirstiness. It also seem that this would have been admissible in the trial as evidence for mens rea (intent). Why was it left out? It seems this was the reason:

New information also raises questions about the victim, who was accused of spray-painting racist messages and engaging in threatening conduct. The jury never heard this information about both individuals due to a “gentleman’s agreement” between the prosecution and the defense.

Turley doesn’t dwell on that, but I will. It also seems to me that the alleged racist past of Metcalf would not have been admissible because Anthony had no reason to be aware of it and also it did not involve anything that happened between them the day of the killing. None of the many many witnesses have alleged anything of the sort from Metcalf that day, and that’s all that matters. However, the prosecution probably felt (and correctly so) that making sure that evidence about Metcalf never reached the public was important because it could prejudice the jury, and the prosecution was willing to exclude Anthony’s bloodthirstiness in exchange, considering that they had plenty of evidence to convict him without it.

As for Talarico:

In [Talarico’s] appearance on the New York radio show The Breakfast Club, he discussed how he nodded along as a town hall attendee who called Anthony’s conviction a “tragedy.”

He added: “I’m not an expert on this particular case, but I know that there were no black members of the jury, and to me, that’s, that’s the only evidence you need to, to really prove this system is not working for black Texans.” …

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees trial by an impartial jury, not a particular racial makeup. The Equal Protection Clause also protects after discrimination in jury selection.

Under Batson v. Kentucky, the defense can challenge the use of peremptory challenges by the prosecution on the issue of race. However, the issue is not simply the result of the challenges but the motivation behind such challenges.

In the case of James Kirkland Batson … the Supreme Court and held that, while a defendant is not entitled to have jurors who meet certain racial criteria, the state is not permitted to use its peremptory challenges to automatically exclude potential members of the jury because of their race.

In the Anthony case, challenges to black prospective jurors [were] … because they were educators and the crime occurred on school grounds. The ultimate jury was not “all-White” as commonly claimed. It included Asian, Indian, and Hispanic members.

More on Anthony’s state of mind:

In a 75-page filing, prosecutors also note that Karmelo Anthony had earlier been accused of taking his girlfriend’s phone and, in October 2024, drafted a “to-do” list instructing her how to handle quote “weirdos,” which included the line “say sum slick like my bf kill people.”

Text exchanges further reveal that he admitted on at least two occasions to punching girls in the face.

Prosecutors located 2021 messages between Karmelo Anthony and another student discussing robbing someone for $300.

Other texts show Karmelo Anthony recounting a fight and punching someone “so hard he had to stop fighting.”

In 2023, prosecutors say Karmelo Anthony told a friend he planned to vandalize a house in Austin, Texas, writing, “I just feel like it, I gotta grudge.”

In 2021, Karmelo Anthony informed a friend he had been suspended for three days after fighting, adding, “they said next time I do sum I get recommended for expulsion,” court papers show. …

Prosecutors add that Karmelo Anthony repeatedly threatened to murder his girlfriend in texts, including lines such as “how many bullets u want coming out of ur chest” and “I’m going to get you (expletive).”

More at the link.

It seems as though all of this was left out of the trial, due to the agreement. But Anthony’s lawyers want a new trial, and the prosecution seems ready for it. Of course, a great deal depends on the judge and what he or she would allow in. Conveniently, the judge from the old trial has been replaced:

His new attorneys argued Wednesday that a retrial was warranted in part because state District Judge John Roach, who presided over Anthony’s murder trial in June, enforced overly strict courtroom rules and gave an interview after the murder trial ended. …

A new judge will be assigned for Thursday’s hearing on the retrial request.

The defense argued Roach compromised his impartiality by speaking publicly about the case after the verdict. In one interview, Roach agreed with the assessment that the jury “got it right.”

Anthony’s attorneys also challenged Roach’s decisions to limit cameras and public access during the trial.

It seems they are not alleging actual bias on the part of the original judge, just the appearance of bias. Their only defense, really, is to play the race card. And play it they will.