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

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. Um it only took 3. hours for them to come to a conclusion.

and. you know, you never know what a what a. jury is going to do. So yeah, 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 uh 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. SiriusXM 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 um. the the the manslaughter charge, if. that's what they consider and find him, you know, guilty on, I think it will. 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. this was. murder. It was premeditated murder. He went into that tent. uh on the Frisco uh grounds in the.

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. If 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. You need to leave.". They They weren't 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 a very much like. this kid had some dastardly deed on his. mind. And could have been Austin Met- Calf, could have been Hunter Met- Calf, could.

have been anybody. But he set himself up for this entire. event. And he never testified. So, we not 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, weren't 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 what was it that they saw on the. defense team. that led them to that conclusion? Um 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 uh the Carmelo Anthony verdict, which. is in. It is not It has not yet been. read or announced, but it is in. The. jury has reached a verdict 3 hours after. they were given the case. Um we've got some of our.

uh 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 Eiglarsh. Uh both handle not only civil cases, but. criminal cases as well, including. criminal defense. And um 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. 3-hour. deliberation period tells us? >> His goose is cooked, Megan. Uh 3 hours. means that the jury was not hung. They. didn't have any questions. My concern. that I expressed uh that there could. potentially be the the issue of a. stealth juror trying to sneak on the. jury. I expressed that in in your AM. update that you just referenced. It. doesn't look like that happened. It. looks like the jury was united. Uh 3.

hours is very short, which means they. they didn't really have a whole lot to. um 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. um 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. Um but I I I seem to think. that uh this quick verdict, combined. with the fact that there are no real. questions, none no questions at all that. we know of, um tells me the jury was a. cohesive unit. They're united, they're.

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. >> 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? >> Yeah, I 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 you. he would have been destroyed on the. witness stand. So, he he 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, a 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. >> Mhm. I mean, the.

the question here is whether. this jury's going to look at Carmelo. Anthony. at 17 years old and say, "I'm not I'm. not finding him guilty of murder. I I'm. not doing that. Manslaughter is a. reasonable alternative, and. I mean, I can see I 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. >> I I actually had that in a case once.

where a jury reached a compromise. verdict um 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. uh 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, uh 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.

um. there's there's going to be any of that. sort of a 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. posted about this on my X 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 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 I I honestly scratch my head wondering. if. um maybe some of this money that was. raised during the go go what was it? [snorts] GiveSendGo 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. >> And they can't change the facts, you. know? They just can't change the facts. If they had a team of lawyers, I 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 in 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 it, 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? >> Mhm. >> Can I answer first, Megan? >> reasonable doubt. That would be the. >> Megan, but I'd like to answer it. >> of it, the mere daring, go ahead, lay. hands on me. >> Not a good fact. >> He wanted it. Agreed. >> No. >> 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 the. >> We don't know that. 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. >> But that's. He intended to plunge the knife into his. heart. >> He 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. Therefore, it. is murder. So, it's not Whether he. intended to kill is irrelevant. Did he. intend to do the act that caused the. death? Absolutely did. >> Yeah, I I think that you're conceding my. point. I think that if he 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. >> You're misstating the standard. >> No, I think that's murder still, Mark. >> a reckless disregard, reck- reckless. disregard for human life is enough.

That's enough. >> Well, let's. >> And and that's what he showed by shoving. that knife into the heart. >> I mean, I I I I I I. >> 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, um I 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. uh to come up with a 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. >> Yeah, because it you tell me, Phil, but.

isn't it when when you have a. manslaughter case, it's it's heat of. passion. You you know, the something is. >> shoved? >> The classic is. >> after being shoved? >> The hus-. >> There's no evidence that he was shoved. >> 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. intent. It doesn't excuse it, but that's. a manslaughter. That That's not what. this was. The guy showed up there. By.

the way, Dave Aronberg now joining us. Dave, great to see you. A former Palm. Beach County. prosecutor. You're not going to get much. help with this prosecutor. [laughter]. There's no way. You're outnumbered. That's the classic. There's no heat of passion in 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, shuffing a knife in. his heart. Yeah, 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 a 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. >> Let's address 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 cuz 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. >> Mark, are you saying that Carmelo. Anthony was sporting a knife? >> Let me respond, Phil. Let me respond. >> boy. Come on. >> of all, I I don't I I don't have to. prove that 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, I'm My. argument is you could make the argument. >> Well, you you. >> Okay, fine. Let's 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 angry, excuse. me, but I think it's because he's got a. chip on his shoulder because I've seen. his family. >> be right. >> try to racialize this entire case.

>> be right. >> without any evidence. >> You're right. >> 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. uh 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. >> 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 The 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. >> Well, Dave. >> That's all. >> I mean, you Dave, you know as well as I. do, as well as Mark does, and Phil, [clears throat] that uh. 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 the most. aggressive witness for the defense said.

he shoved him. >> Yeah. >> You cannot respond to a shove with. deadly force, period. >> I don't disagree. >> Go ahead. >> So, how's it manslaughter then? I mean, like Mark is right. Manslaughter is. reserved for things where you can't. 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 then kill someone is murder. It's. not manslaughter. Now, look, if you want.

to blame people, you blame. the defendant and his lawyer, because I. have 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. >> Yeah. 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. >> to know where someone's heart is. I. mean, like let's be honest. >> That could be. >> He didn't He didn't stab that kid in the. heart. He stabbed him in the stomach, in. his leg, in his arm. Go ahead, >> was in the bag. Uh you know, and this was before any. alleged putting on of hands occurred. Uh.

and so, look, I I appreciate always. appreciate the zealous advocacy and the. um. 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 I think that um. 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. Um 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, uh in any event, um 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, I. what I saw was um 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, you know, talk to them. very much ahead of time or if they did, it it 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. um. what you would what you would have. expected out of this defense team. So, um anyway. >> Phil, let me show you um sound bite 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, sound 12. >> And then the defense began their case. Saturday afternoon with three witnesses. Of course, there was a a couple of. students that they called. One thing I. thought stood out then uh 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 2 minutes. right here in the hallway before we came. in. So, there was no witness prep. And. we know that's a 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 on. 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. >> Yeah, and 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. >> And and folks, if you hadn't checked it. out, Dave and I got into this very. discussion uh on today's uh episode of. the MK True Crime Show. Um, and I'm sure we'll come back to it.

as well once we know what the verdict. is. And by the way, >> Just to interrupt you quickly, Phil. Just to interrupt you quickly, forgive. me. Uh, the jurors are entering the. courtroom right now. >> And uh, so they're all there. >> the crowds showing outside the court. It's getting heated outside that. courtroom, too. It out in the. >> You know, it's this. They the the the new Black Panthers are. there, which. is never helpful. >> Was there any testimony at all that race. ever came into play in terms of episode. Nothing, right? >> No. No. It 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. >> And 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 and the verdict. And it.

hasn't I you know, so far that hasn't. caught hold and there's been zero. evidence of it in court. But here he is. This guy's got a long history of his own. involving some very questionable. behavior with young children and hurting. them. Um, 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 uh, 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. flush out whether there was any racial. bias in 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 an animus. Go. ahead, Phil. >> Yeah, I was just talking about exactly. what you're seeing outside the. courthouse in just from a 10,000-foot.

level. 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. uh you know, our justice system breaking. down like this to. um 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 uh white, we have.

witnesses that are black. You know, the. fact that you've got uh a. a jury made up of. uh 12 white individuals is is not. doesn't surprise me because it's a. majority white uh jurisdiction as I. understand it. 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. >> Stand by, Phil. Stand by. Uh this this. this per 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 read out from the. court clerk um. and the exchange with the jury as. as it happens. Stand by. Hold on. Just. watching the. for a refresh on my phone as we continue. to await.

>> Yeah, we're all struggling with looking. at the camera versus looking at Twitter. on our phones. >> He's been found guilty. >> Murder. >> Guilty of murder. >> A Collin County jury has found Carmelo. Anthony guilty of murder in the death of. Austin Metcalfe. I mean. >> No surprise. >> There There 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. >> 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 have. school fights and now it 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 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 and just putting. the prosecutors to their burden of. proof. Well, prosecutors got a quick. guilty verdict. >> The The 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. >> Megan. >> It was It was They weren't even having a. fight. It was a minor dispute over. whether Carmelo should have been in that. tent and it 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 a. 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. Go ahead, >> 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 and 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 we can't do anything. other than find for the most serious. charge.". >> I mean, what we're hearing now from. inside the courtroom, um I just want to make sure I I have. that. citation correct. This is from CBS 11. News reporter J.D. 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. Uh justice was done, Phil Holloway. Uh. it's it's unfortunate. It's sad. I. really do as as with any crime involving. a minor, I do. have some blame for the parents. I want. to know what happened in that house. Why? How did you raise a 17-year-old who. was this indifferent to the value of.

human life? >> They say that the human brain. >> [clears throat]. >> 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. 5-in 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 your Billy badass is the 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. >> people. >> Yep. >> He killed two people. It was a. murder-suicide in a way. >> And and he destroyed his family and. everything. And now we're going to have.

to deal with all the unrest outside the. courthouse. >> I'm curious, Dave. >> Can I ask you guys something? This is. just breaking right now. They 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. Like, what should he get? 5 to 99. years, apparently. >> But, can you explain that? Do you Does. that mean we're going to get a sentence. right away? Is that how it works in Texas? >> So, that's my question to all of you. To. 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 are if you've. got a range of 5 to 99 years, what is the appropriate sentence? >> Which is the case. >> Well, how old was the defendant? Was he. 17? >> But wait, wait, before we get to the. appropriate sentence, Ighersh, >> What? >> let's talk about my question, which is. are are do do you know, Phil or Dave, whether. that means immediately into the. sentencing. >> Sounds like Yeah, that's what it sounds. like. >> Yeah. Right now. >> It sounds like I've actually had that It. It used to be fairly common,

particularly when the law mandates, um you know, a life sentence. And in this case, uh 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. >> 5 to 99, so I don't think it is a. It doesn't mandate a. life sentence, but it's I mean, it would. It would be effectively. It effectively would be one if he gets a. 99-year sentence. >> maybe we we can double-check that. I I. had maybe misread that, but in any.

event, um it's What I had read was it. was life, but uh in any event, the judge. heard the testimony. The judge heard the. testimony and the judge um heard the. evidence and and saw the evidence and I. think has a pretty good idea what he's. going to do, so that explains it. >> Meghan, 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 99 than the five. He can't give. him life without parole. Um 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. Um I would be interested to 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 I 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.

>> 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. I couldn't do it as a. lawyer. I couldn't get up there and. >> How does Well, how does it normally. work? I mean, it doesn't it normally. Isn't there normally like a break. between the the verdict. >> Yes, I've never seen that, but Texas is. very different. >> It's 5 to 99 or life. That's That's the. correct answer. So, you know, the the 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 um true to. form, has apparently uh decided he wants. this whole thing to be over and done. with right now. And so, >> That That is unusual. I've I've not seen. that. >> to pronounce sentence, yeah. >> In Florida. Yeah, that's very unusual. because it puts the families through a. lot. >> what do you see? I mean, like as you 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 for the defendant? I. mean, I I don't want to call him a kid. cuz he's not. And he's certainly um. an adult now. >> Yeah. >> Um he's 18 or 19 now. This only happened. last year, so he's I think he's probably. 18 years old, but um. Do you Do you think this judge will have. any softness in the sentence given the. age when the crime was committed? >> Not this judge, Megan. This is different. than the Mackenzie Shirilla case, which. we discussed on MK True Crime because.

there you had. >> From that Netflix special, The Crash. >> Right. She 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 possibility of parole at some. point, but I think it's going to be up. on the high digits perhaps. I can see 50. years here. I can see that. Yeah, I can. see that. >> I I can this judge. >> Why are you making that face? Why? >> 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 can see that. on this panel for it's 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 let's start with that. Can we at least start with that? >> I don't If I were the prosecutor, I. would get up and I would start with. Austin Metcalfe, not with Carmelo. Anthony. >> Well, of course. >> He's never going to walk down the aisle, never going to go to college, 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 the parents of. of Austin Metcalfe tried. tried to reach out to the. uh family of Carmelo Anthony. There. there was a press conference. Remember. Dominique Alexander was there with uh. Carmelo Anthony's parents, and Jeff. Metcalfe, he showed up. He wanted to hear what.

they had to say. And this Dominique Alexander, shamed him. Trying to say he had done something like. disrespectful. His son was dead. It was just so wrong. Like they they've. been treated so wrong, the Metcalfe's, by the Anthonys from the start. And if I. were the judge, he may not be able to. consider any of that, but this may 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 is. Hunter Metcalf who's probably sitting in. that courtroom right now, the identical. twin. who held his dying brother in his arms. and wailed, "I can't do this. I can't do. this.". He 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. I'd be fine with that. >> to. >> I just feel like what kind of an in. >> on a 17-year-old. >> of callous person shoves a knife into.

another. 17-year-old's heart. >> He should get He should get He should. get decades for that. >> Well, Mark, to your point about should. he be treated. >> Should he be treated differently on. sentencing, too? >> 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. >> you're saying life without parole or. anything without parole, that's not an. option because he was a minor when he. committed the crime. >> Also, Megan, under Texas law doesn't. allow it. >> Well, Texas law generally allows that. 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. >> 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. Um 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. uh. This is uh from inside the courtroom. reported by. um. I'm not sure who she reports for. Oh, she's with the Daily Mail. Mary Ann. Martinez. >> Megan, can I make a point about. >> Oh, she reports that he's back in 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. 5 and 99 years in prison. I don't know. if this is true, but we heard we heard. that. that there was an election to 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 cuz it's. the jury's there. It's you know, if it's. the jury's task, the jury's not done. with its work. Go ahead, John. >> So, look to your your your 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, okay, in the United States. There's no reason that I can think of, no good reason, not to have live stream. 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. >> Um this just in, Carmelo Anthony's. mother is taking the stand now. >> Jesus. >> as the sentencing phase of his murder.

trial begins. Prosecution and defense. waived opening statements. Mark, I can't. either. >> Because I'm thinking of first and. foremost I'm thinking um 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 I just they would. never do that here. I've I've never. heard of anything like that. It's just. cruel. >> You're in Florida. >> I know. >> You know, Megan just so the audience knows 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. >> 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. Um. again, we're 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. 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. >> You know, I 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 3-hour. verdict on sentencing. >> Okay, but now listen to to. Fox Dallas reporting that Carmelo's. mother was asked if Carmelo regrets his.

behavior. She said, "Yes, he does regret. it. Please have mercy on my son.". >> Mhm. >> She's saying he's remorseful. She's the. only witness the defense plans to call. That's just it. >> That what? Okay. Okay. No, no, no. Listen, every single. person my client ever said God bless. you, too, 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, not.

nobody, friends, family? You got to put. people on there to humanize 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 could go out there and. say, "I regret everything that happened. I wish it hadn't happened." And that. won't hurt his appeal, but I think it. shows. >> He can't be cross-examined, Dave. >> He could Yes. Yes, and that's why he. won't That's why he won't do it, but at. this point, you don't want to do it. All. right. And maybe that's what the.

prosecutor would 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 what what as a. as a as a defense lawyer you're trying. to go for to get the jury to feel. I I. You can't put him up there. You can't.

>> 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. Um. I am sure that they will be moved by his. mother. begging for mercy, but. Austin Metcalfe's mother is probably. going to take the stand too. And that I mean, this is Texas, guys. You know, it's Texas. We are not in San. Francisco where with the most leftist. jurors you can find. Texas justice.

>> I learned that the hard way. 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. >> Yeah. >> That's [laughter] what I learned. That's what I learned. >> Those are my people. >> Yes. >> I was meant to live there. Um. Yeah, so that's the problem is they're. going to undoubtedly feel hear from. Austin's. parents, one or both of them. And and. maybe maybe from sweet Hunter, his.

identical twin. Think of the power of that. He looks. exactly like him. >> goodness. It's almost like hearing from. 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. >> Yeah, it's it's not good for uh it. doesn't doesn't bode well for Carmelo. Anthony. This jury may not give him life. if it if it's up to them, but um. he's he's going I I think you we can all. agree that he's going to be in a Texas. prison for uh the foreseeable future and.

if if not all of his life, certainly. most of it. It's what a sad sad tragic. case all the way around. >> Well, listen to this, you guys. Listen. to this. The No one will be taking the stand for. the prosecution because they also. rested. The. The defense rested after. Carmelo's mom. in the penalty portion portion of this. case, the state also also just rested. >> What? >> So, the jury now will decide the. punishment. I know. >> What? I I I don't I don't get it.

>> Mark, what's happening? >> In trial, you're limited on what you're. allowed to say, right? You can call the. mother up for to identify, to 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. >> Right. I don't I genuinely don't get why. they wouldn't put one of the Metcalfs on. the stand.

>> Maybe they're exhausted. I mean, this. has been an emotionally draining trial. and now you got to go and do the penalty. phase right away. I don't know. They. should She 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 you got to go for what the. family wants, which is clearly they want. this guy to be imprisoned as long as. possible. So, how do you leave money on. the table like that? I think they should. put up more. >> 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 they were there during the penalty. phase. We talked about it at the time. and you know, I I 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, the. 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 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 he's. not he death penalty's 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. And as it is now, punishment phase just ended after one. witness, two questions. from the defense, one from the. prosecution. Um 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. 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? >> I got nothing. I've never seen a jury do. it. I've seen juries recommend, like in. death penalty cases, they can 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. >> And what if they're divided? >> jury charge is going to say things like, you know, um.

it whatever your enlightened conscience, you know, leads you to within the within. the statutory range, and the judge will. spell out what the possible options are. for them. And uh 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, um 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. >> Where Where I don't Where's the. mitigating factors that they always. present on team defense? You know, somebody gets up there and says he he. was in the Cub Scouts, and he that one. time he helped the lady with her. groceries, and you know, he 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. Megan, I've. represented some really dark fellows. 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. >> I want you. I say Mark, you get up there. Tell Tell.

them about me. I know you guys got to run. I would say if you don't have to run. >> I would I would say I see him at Publix. all the time and he goes up to the to to. to to to to the bruised apples and he. whispers, "Who did this to you?". >> [laughter]. >> He's so compassionate. Whatever it. takes, Megan. >> Maybe they're seeking an effective. assistance of counsel, but generally. that's. >> Not at this point, [laughter] buddy. >> That's what I'm saying. Generally, that's not in the penalty phase. Wait a. second. I really want to hear that out. >> Wait, keep going. Well, generally that's. for the the guilt phase, not in the.

penalty phase of a trial. So, I 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 the his mother smoked in. the womb. Remember they did that with. the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas mass. murder? >> That happened to me, too. I I knew my. mother was to blame for all my problems. >> Hey Megan, I got a show called. Positively Legal under the MK brand and. I got Jon Peters and producers waiting.

for me. I should have been there several minutes. ago. So, yeah. >> Go. I know you guys got to go. I I'm. going to keep going because we're going. to see if we can possibly not get to. this. recommendation. Yeah, go ahead, Scott. >> I was too was going to excuse myself. Thank you very much for 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 the MK True.

Crime. We've got three great shows over. there. >> Absolutely. Check out my panel and Dave, do you have to I think you have to go. too according to my producers. Yeah, I. 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 Geragos 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 just want to tell. you what's happening outside of the. courtroom now. These new Black Panthers. are behaving. terribly [clears throat]. injecting once again race where it. doesn't belong. Take a listen to the. following caller from outside of the. courthouse. This is a female Black.

Panther. >> We got to tell them the truth. This is a racist ass country. We got to tell them the truth. We don't GET STOPPED THAT ASS. Don't nobody want to hear about what we. do to each other. We talking about what. they doing to us. WHITE FOLKS KILL WHITE FOLKS. MEXICANS. KILL MEXICANS. WE AIN'T TRYING TO HEAR NO. today. Go over there with them white. folks with that. This this is a. racist ass country. We in a racist ass.

state. This is a racist ass court. Ain't nothing ELSE TO TALK ABOUT. WHEN HAS A. WHITE BOY BEEN before a 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 BEEN GOING ON. THEY never stop being racist. >> Nice.

So, in case you missed it, this is a. war. We got to tell our kids the truth. that this is a racist ass country. And then ask 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 the bloodstream. of Frisco. and hoping. that someone who thought as he and this. woman do. uh 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.

uh that the person Oh, actually, I I. lost it, but it's knowingly or. intentionally. Hold on, 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 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. I there's there's just no question that. that's what happened here. Like. you you knowingly caused the death of. Austin Mekhaff when. you whatever the equivalent of a sucker. punch is, you sucker stabbed. him in the heart with no warning. and no. no build-up, 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 Mekhaff did not see this coming. He had no idea. his life was in danger. Uh 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. Uh 5 and 99 years is the 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.

Uh the jury, it's true, did not have any. black members on it, but it had. multiple minorities, including. um. Asian women, a Hispanic or an Indian. man, a Middle Eastern woman wearing a. head cover 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 we 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 JD 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 I'm I got to be honest. I don't I. don't have a lot of tolerance for this. mother. She sat there in back of Dominique. Alexander. Let me show you that that bit. from Dominique Alexander. trying to demonize Austin's dad. Jeff Metcalfe. Just listen to this one. This is from April of 2025 South 15. >> What we seen. at the beginning of this press. conference. >> Parents are behind him. >> of the father being at this press.

conference is a disrespect to the. dignity. of his son. His dad was disrespectful. and just shows you all. the character. who was not invited. He knows. that it's inappropriate to be near this. family. But he did. >> Ah. >> And so I say to people actions speak. louder than words.

Okay? What he has fell 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 non-stop. >> Unbelievable. Ashley Merchant is my guest now. Uh she.

joins us. She's also part of our MK True. Crime Network. Uh and you may know her. from her very famous and laudable Fani. Willis case participation. She's the one. who we have to thank for getting that. case dismissed. Um. 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 Metcalfe. showed up at this presser involving his. son's murder. 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 this defense this whole. time that, you know, this is racist and. I he's 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. >> That's right. They didn't. And and not. only do they stand there while. while. this Dominique Alexander, their family. spokesperson. >> Right. >> 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 Metcalfe. They stood.

there and listened as well when he. played the race card, which with which. they were obviously totally fine. Here's. thought 13 from that same presser, April. 17th, 2025. >> 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. It's 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 live it. I'm reminded all the time that I'm a. black man in America. >> Oh my god. I mean, Ashley, it's. outrageous what they did, what they.

tried to pull off. >> 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. >> Mhm. They're 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. >> Not on Austin Metcalfe's part. >> Right. I'm not either and I'm not 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. Um, you know, something like. that. I can't help but think that that. was somewhere in the back of their head. >> Yeah. >> It just. >> I I there's no way the parents are are. full of this level of racial grievance. and the son isn't. I 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. >> 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, it he. doesn't have prior convictions. So, usually if you don't put your client on. the stand, it's cuz 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. 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. violent streak and that they were afraid. of that. Or else, why would they not. have put him on the stand? >> Mhm. Yes, I I totally agree with you. He. must not have been a sympathetic witness. at all. I- if he couldn't even take take. the stand to. express that he regretted murdering.

Austin. I like. >> And then he was scared. >> 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 that would have. could have potentially saved him if they. actually saw that fear if if it existed, but clearly it didn't exist. >> Yeah. Um now I want to uh bring in a. first-time guest on the case, Ashley. stays with us, who has covered this case. very closely. Uh his name is Imran.

Ansari, and he's a law partner of our. pal Arthur Aidala. 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. >> Yeah, Megan, I'm not surprised at this. verdict, and he had swift justice there, right? They were deliberating for maybe. 3 hours or so when they came back with.

this verdict. And to uh to Ashley's. point, um 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, you know, 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 uh. 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, uh 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. >> You know, I have to say, I thought um. 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 you have to go back in. So, now that. he's convicted, it and if he wants to file an appeal, which they always do, um. he'll have to say ineffective assistance. of counsel. And actually, he'll have to. then prove to the court that an. effective lawyer could have gotten him. off. >> Right. That which is Yeah, that's the. >> So, like, it doesn't make any sense to. intentionally tank it. >> 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 he would have to. prove an 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 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 defense lawyer. When our. hands are tied, it's because mom's in. the room and she's saying, "You you. know, you be a proud whatever. You're. 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. Um 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 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 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 did wasn't really. making the right decision. Because he's 17. >> And 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. GiveSendGo and reportedly. used it on this. 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. Um. 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, uh. forgive me, didn't seem like their. child's welfare was really their number. one concern given that behavior. >> Right. 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 on 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 and 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.

>> Yeah. I I feel like these parents. actually. 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 whose soundbite we ran. yesterday who said, "We take care of our. own. You take care of your own." 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. >> What do you want us to do? >> That's right. >> What what do you want us to do at this. point? WHAT? I I. I'm lost for words. I don't know what to. do. I got five boys. I don't know what I ain't got nothing to. tell THEM NO MORE. YOU CAN'T WALK AWAY. no more. >> Rest in peace Trayvon Martin. >> Let me ask you this. Right now, I I I.

>> Okay, got cut off in an awkward place. there. Via that's via H.A.Y. uh show on. WFLA which is on Nexstar. And by the. way, our earlier soundbite was from Nick. Sortor, the one where we showed the uh. Black Panther claiming the country's. racist and the court is racist and this. is a war. So, yeah. What am I What am I going to. tell my kid Why don't you tell your your. kids not to. stab somebody in the heart over a a. track meet tent. >> Right. Over. >> And and then they'll be fine.

>> I mean, and don't 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. 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, that the church, you know, the 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? I just I 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. >> and if he opens the door, even like if. there are school things, if there were. some you know, if there 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. >> Mhm. Yeah, and she said he's her oldest, which means she's got other kids. Like, you couldn't have a kid, like a 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. Um, stand by, I want. to bring in Viva Fry, who's joining us. now to add to our panel. Um, Viva, are. you are you surprised by any of this? In. particular, that we are already in the. sentencing phase, and that it's already. over, the the testimonials on his. behalf? >> What I was shocked about is how 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 a basically a day. and a half, there was no point digging. the hole any further, but. the truly malicious thing about this is. 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 Metcalfe was the. aggressor." That compounds the awfulness. and the evil of the action. But this was.

a it was a train wreck disaster slam. dunk of a murder case and there was no. point in dragging it on any longer for. the defense. >> Here is a little bit more Iman 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. Sorrell as well. Take a listen at here. at 56. >> to protect black people. Anytime a white. man or white child can go and put their. hands across the street 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 ass. >> What was the Anthony family? Who was the Anthony family? What were. the people that standing behind the. Anthony family? That's the question you. should ask. >> We're going to stand behind him and. we're going to fight. That's what's going to happen. >> What is your relationship. >> I have NO RELATIONSHIP. >> 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 GOT TO STICK. TOGETHER. THIS MAKES NO GOD DAMN SENSE. That young boy, he was he was defending. his god damn self. >> 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? >> Well, it certainly if that was the. attitude that was being uh, you know,

given during the voir dire like jury. selection, no juror like that would ever. be selected or a potential juror. Uh, 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. 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 verdict. >> 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 they did 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. Uh I regret to tell you that. Dominique Alexander is speaking outside. of the courthouse, of course, because he's not going to miss his 2. minutes of fame. And you'll be shocked,

shocked to hear his messaging. Let's. play it. >> This process did has shown that black. lives do not matter in Collin County. >> Come on, Lee. >> 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. >> Ashley, >> I mean. >> OMG. >> It 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 picked. that jury. It's a process of. deselection. If. lawyers had thought that it was unfair. and that it was somehow biased, they. could have objected. They could have. repaneled 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 to reshuffle. I mean, there's so many remedies. So, you know, when I hear him, I'm like, he's 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 Crime Con and. they actually had a whole panel of. ex-jurors who were talking about how 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. >> Oh, and Viva. >> No, >> A black This shows the verdict shows. black men are not safe in Collin County. The. The decedent is a dead man as a dead.

white man. He's a dead white man, not a. black man. Get it straight, Dominique. it will 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 Asians, a. Muslim woman, I think Latino. The The 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. Uh 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 and 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 fry murder case. So, it's. not a broader scale thing. But, for the. for the woman who came out there in the.

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 of what I think are crazies. and not a broader sentiment, but maybe. I'm being too optimistic.

>> Mhm, no, you're you're right. It's. actually a good point um 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. >> Right, but and you would hope, Megan, that he would be speaking accurately, but he's not, right? We're 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. 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 the information. age where every little thing is going to. be picked apart and I'm sure what he. said out there will be picked about part. by someone on social media from the.

other side we're 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. >> Not only that can I I want 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. Metcalfe it's a disservice to black. people who are normal and do not think. like this as a group they're they're not. 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 that's 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. >> Right. And I would argue that they probably. hurt the 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 Metcalfe had said. something awful or done something awful, that there was going to be some, you. know, smoking gun that they had kept.

from us all because, you know, there's. no way Dominique Alexander's 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. >> 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.

>> It's the you know, there's the old. expression of the soft bigotry of low. expectations and it's also just known as. bigotry, but I I am 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 um. 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 are 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, there 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'd just say. the only saving grace here, I think, is. it's a very vocal group of of radicals,

and not a broader sort of us versus. them, like we saw with O.J. Simpson, when I remember otherwise rational. people, or so I thought, saying, "This. is a victory because O.J. Simpson got. away with murder, allegedly." Uh in this. case, it seems to be a a much more. narrow group of radicals located to the. courthouse, uh 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. >> Mhm. Here's a little bit more from. outside of the courthouse. This is an an. attorney, Michael Jaffa. I don't know.

that he had any role in the case. I. think he's just an attorney, but could. be wrong. Um. this was on Court TV's um. coverage of this. Take a listen to his. reaction. >> I mean, this is I'm I'm questioning the. jury. I mean, ask them, "How did you. reach your verdict? How did you reach it. so quickly? What happened? He was a 4-in. 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. it, to compound it, this dumb judge. didn't allow cameras in the courtroom. What was your wisdom? What were you. thinking? How did you put on a robe? Are. you that much of an imbecile that you. won't let court 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. >> Wow. Wow, Ashley. It's a 4-in knife. He only. used it one time. >> 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 3-hour. verdict, I'm not sure how many cases. he's trying, because that's not unheard. of. 3 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 to debate. over. I mean, it was pretty open and. shut. So, if you think about it, so 3. 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. 3 hours, that's That's actually a long. time. >> It's a very good point. Um, I want to. tell you, Imran, that Dominic 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. Uh, he has a history reading here from. the Daily Mail, uh, sorry, the Daily Caller. We've also. reported this independently in the past.

Uh, 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.

2-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 5 years in prison for violating. probation multiple times, but served. only 8 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 2 days in jail. Okay, before I give you his latest soundbite, I mean, honestly, you you tell me, Amran. What you. Somebody like that walks into your. office and says, "I I didn't do the shoplifting. Like, I. I need you to represent me. I I swear. this is all made up." And your reaction. is what? >> Well, Megan, listen, it's not going to. be good for business if I say I'm not. going to. >> [laughter]. >> necessarily take my potential criminal. defense. >> you're not going to paint him as a choir.

boy. >> Um well, it's questionable. I'll say. that. It's definitely questionable, and. um. it's a track record, right? But um 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 and viewers, Megan, says it all, right? He has a history, has a checkered past there, he has. convictions, so I'm not talking about. just merely allegations with some of the.

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 hear. >> 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. >> An all all white jury. convicted [snorts]. him. in two to three hours. We know that they did not prove 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. >> He's got a felony conviction, Megan. >> No, they're. >> Yeah, but they're trying to create a.

powder keg down there. He He's trying to. create a powder keg. >> 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 could come out to. protest the innocence of Carmelo. Anthony. I mean, that 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 I 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 3 hours also, like Ashley. says, there's no there's no O.J. 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, I he only. stabbed him once. And.

if the argument had been from the. beginning, I 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. That is to. say. >> This is why some 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 6:00. I'm actually not. sure if that's um. Central Time or East Coast Time. And.

then he's going to send them back at. Central. Okay, so 6:00 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. >> 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 I. 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 about who they are. >> we're not talking about someone who was. you know, in a protest and has a. disorderly conduct and you're like, okay, 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. their entire lives. >> No arrest. Happy to tell you. >> here never, you know? So, most people. have gone through their 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 this. entire case and this entire movement. that they're trying to do. It's just. it's 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. >> Well, and not only that, but Vinnie, 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 that there'd actually been. witness testimony suggesting he may have. thrown himself on the kni- which is. insulting. That's insulting to the jury. >> insulting to the jury, it's insulting to. the victim, it victimizes the family. again. Yeah, he threw himself on the. knife. It's It's like the M&M lyrics. Yeah, she slipped and fell on his blank. in order to explain her infidelity. It. It It 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. Calling Austin.

a thug and say, "Oh, he was a 220-lb, he. knew jiu-jitsu, 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 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.

The. It's not just that he made bad decisions. at the time. It compounding them and. then suggesting that it was Austin's. fault and then racializing it right. after. I mean, that that evidences 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 3/4. of 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 through the entire. family.

>> Yes, and not only did he do that to. Metcalfe and his family, the victim, but. he he smeared the kids at Memorial High. School, too. He The There were witnesses. that 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 on in some untold numbers on one kid, this one poor kid in the middle of this.

mob. And that was all lies. The 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. they could he could have taken the. stand. He could have said. I I. 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, in the heat It was a heat of a. passion kind of thing. You're 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 um we're not. going to stay on the air for another 2. hours waiting for this, but.

here this just in from Mary Ann. 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? >> Well, certainly they're going to read uh. the the sentencing at the aspects of the. sentencing to. uh 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 uh uh 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 uh there's a real chance uh 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 I would expect that the. they the judge wants to keep this going. They want the sentence to to come down.

rather expeditiously. And for the safety. of not only those jurors, but everyone. around that courthouse to clear that. courthouse uh and move on. >> Mhm. Yeah. Um I think it's the right move to have. them sequestered, you know, just in. case. Um. we certainly hope uh 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 What's a fair sentence for.

this crime? >> 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. Um 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's.

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 beg. for forgiveness. And I think because of. that, I think they're going to give him. every day they can. >> Yeah. That's what I would do. Um we're going to go off the air now and. await the 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. It's a pleasure. to see you all. We appreciate it. Thanks. to all of you for listening and tuning. in and. God rest Austin Metcalfe and God bless. this jury as it wrestles with yet. another tough decision. We'll see you tomorrow.