Karmelo Anthony's attorneys vow to keep fighting, push forward with appeals after new trial denied

Despite a judge's ruling denying Karmelo Anthony a new murder trial, his legal team continues to hold out hope through other appeals.

Every question was on the table when Anthony's appellate attorneys made their first public comments about their unsuccessful motion for a new trial in an exclusive interview with CBS News Texas.

Anthony was convicted of murdering 17‑year‑old Austin Metcalf after stabbing him during a Frisco ISD track meet in April 2025. A Collin County jury rejected his self‑defense claim and found he intentionally stabbed Metcalf during an altercation.

"Under the law, we had the burden of proof," said Russell Wilson, a member of Anthony's legal team. "It wasn't necessarily surprising … given there was a limited amount of time."

Wilson, Anthony's lead attorney, was able to introduce at the hearing evidence that jurors who convicted the 19-year-old never heard during the murder trial, including alleged troubled and violent episodes in Austin Metcalf's background.

"I believe that the evidence we put on show the pattern of conduct that should've been considered in determining whether or not who was the aggressor in the situation," Wilson said.

Prosecutors responded by introducing Anthony's past behavior, which his legal team believes compares more favorably with Metcalf's.

"There were no arrests," said Sean Daredia, another member of Anthony's legal team. "He wasn't arrested previously... Again, we're not going back-and-forth through who's worse, who's not. This comes down to whether Karmelo received a fair trial."

Why do Karmelo Anthony's attorneys say his murder trial was unfair?

The debate over whether Anthony received a fair trial has centered on a private agreement between prosecutors and his trial attorneys to exclude background information about both teens from evidence and allow the jury to decide solely what happened during the brief confrontation that led to Anthony fatally stabbing Metcalf.

"That jury did not hear all those things that they needed to hear, so there's no way you can say that this was a fair trial," said Gary Bledsoe, another member of Anthony's legal team.

Asked how the trial might have been different if the agreement had never existed, Bledsoe pointed to jury selection.

"There would be a much greater likelihood that it would've been more difficult to strike jurors during voir dire," Bledsoe said.

Will Karmelo Anthony appeal his murder conviction?

The exclusion of three Black women from the jury by prosecutors is another issue the attorneys say will be part of the appeal process, which could take more than a year.

"We think a diverse jury should be there, and we think that in light of the information they knew that there was an issue regarding whether or not they had confidence that African-American jurors would not be receptive to that," Wilson said.

Asked whether the case was about race, Wilson said: "There wasn't necessarily anything racial said at the time, but when you decide to approach, or pick on a person if you will, what motivates you to choose that person?"

"It absolutely had everything to do with race," Daredia said. "That is why we had this gentleman's agreement. What we're saying is if four experienced attorneys couldn't put it in writing because it's too nuanced, too complicated, how is a young man who just finished high school, with no legal background, never been a part of the criminal justice system, how is he supposed to know what is right? He relied on that."

According to his attorneys, Anthony decided not to testify out of concern that prosecutors would feel free to bring up his past and breach the agreement after the trial judge said he would have to allow it.

"I think the overall thing is how much this trial deviated from a normal trial," Wilson said. "And that's part of closure. That was part of the shadow docket, and those things collectively, we think, made it such a deviation that it wasn't a fair trial."