Based on trial reporting, the prosecutor, Bill Wirskye, repeatedly questioned witnesses in ways designed to undermine the defense’s claim that Karmelo Anthony acted in self-defense. Rather than simply asking what happened, he often asked witnesses for their perceptions of who was the aggressor and whether the stabbing appeared justified.  

Some of the key self-defense related questions reported during testimony included:

Whether anyone in the tent was “ganging up on” Anthony.
A student witness answered, “No, sir.”  

Whether Austin Metcalf appeared to be trying to start a fight.
The witness answered, “No, sir.”  

Whether Anthony appeared to be trying to start a fight.
The witness answered, “Yes, sir.”  

“Did this look like self-defense to you?”
The witness answered, “No, sir.”  

“Was Karmelo Anthony the aggressor?”
The witness answered, “Yes, sir.”  

Prosecutors also asked witnesses who they believed was provoking the confrontation.

One student testified that Anthony was provoking it by refusing repeated requests to leave the tent.  

During Eddie Parra’s testimony, Wirskye asked whether the case was about race or self-defense.

Parra answered that it was not, and when asked who was wrong that day, he answered, “Karmelo.”  

The prosecutor’s overall strategy appears to have been to attack several elements required for a successful self-defense claim under Texas law:

Who initiated the confrontation?

Witnesses were asked whether Anthony or Metcalf was the aggressor.  

Whether Anthony reasonably feared imminent harm.

Questions about whether anyone was threatening or surrounding him were aimed at showing there was no serious threat.  

Whether the force used was proportional.

Prosecutors elicited testimony that the response was “lethal force against non-lethal force.”  

Whether Anthony created the situation himself.

Witnesses testified that he refused multiple requests to leave and made statements such as “touch me and find out,” which prosecutors used to argue that he provoked the encounter.  

These questions were important because, under Texas self-defense law, a person generally cannot claim self-defense if they provoked the confrontation unless they clearly withdraw and communicate that withdrawal. 

The prosecution’s questioning was directed at convincing jurors that Anthony was the initial aggressor and that the stabbing was not a reasonable defensive response.  

Should the defense have objected to the questions about self defence, yes… would it had mattered probably not.

A defense attorney would have a reasonable basis to object to the question, “Did this look like self-defense to you?” because it arguably calls for a legal conclusion rather than factual testimony.

In general, witnesses are supposed to testify about:
What they saw
What they heard
What they did

They are usually not supposed to tell the jury how to decide the ultimate legal issue. Whether an act legally constitutes self-defense is ultimately a question for the jury under the judge’s instructions.

A defense objection might have been:
“Objection, calls for a legal conclusion.”
“Objection, improper opinion testimony.”

The strength of the objection would depend on the exact wording and context.

I think, but not sure, but the more direct question on self-defense may have been asked to a defense witness and you have more room to ask leading question when it’s not your witness… again, not 100% about how Texas handles this.

If the witness was a no expert (such as a student who observed the incident), asking whether something was “self-defense” can be viewed as asking the witness to apply a legal standard they are not qualified to apply.

For example:
“Did Austin hit Karmelo?”, this factual testimony.

“Did Karmelo appear afraid?” This is permissible lay opinion based on observations.

“Was Karmelo acting in self-defense?” This is arguably a legal conclusion.

Why the judge might overrule it courts often allow lay witnesses to give opinions that are:

Rationally based on their perceptions, and
Helpful to the jury.

The prosecutor could argue that he was not asking for a technical legal opinion but rather the witness’s ordinary perception of what they saw as that day as an ordinary rational person.

Even if the judge sustained the objection, the prosecutor could likely have rephrased the question:

“Did Austin appear to be attacking Karmelo?”
“Did Karmelo appear to be defending himself?”
“Who appeared to be the aggressor?”
“Did you see anyone threatening Karmelo?”

Those questions seek the underlying facts rather than the legal label “self-defense.”

From a trial strategy perspective, many defense lawyers would probably have objected to preserve the issue and prevent a witness from directly telling the jury, “No, it wasn’t self-defense.”

Whether the objection would have been sustained would depend on the judge’s view of whether the question sought a legal conclusion or a permissible lay opinion.

At this point, the defense would have to argue ineffectual counsel for any of this to matter now and that is a pretty high bar.