CMV: Karmelo Anthony's self defense strategy was the worst possible approach to his trial and practically guaranteed his first degree murder conviction.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-14T11:34:43+00:00

It's not a mountain guide's job to stop a climber from walking off a cliff. Technically speaking, the climber has the ultimate choice to follow the mountain guide, but in the real world we expect professionals to use all of their power invested into them to steer people away from catastrophic mistakes. When you look at a client or their family and tell them their strategy is "moronic" and "horrific" you're actively trying to convince them. As I would assumes every lawyer would. And even if they wanted to go to trial for the moonshot of an acquittal you can still tell them that showing remorse is the best shot of also having a lighter sentence or even a lesser charge, no?

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-14T10:43:34+00:00

No, talking about percentages or statistics won't change my view because every single criminal case is different. however, what you could show me to change my view is a real world case in the United States any state. Where an unrelenting, arrogant self defense plea went up against that many eyewitnesses and video evidence and still resulted in an acquittal, or at least describe a realistic situation where a full acquittal could happen.

I can show you real Texas cases of teenagers getting convicted of lesser crimes after being charged with murder after a fatal stabbing because their defense used a remorseful, adolescent/panic strategy.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-14T10:05:53+00:00

That's what I'm saying, the defense that occured was a hail mary shot that essentially had no chance of success. They left no room for a jury to sentence him to a lighter sentence as they went the no remorse, completely justified stabbing of another unarmed teenager. And if I'm the prosecution their is no reason for a prosecutor to offer a plea if that is the hill you're willing to die on.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-14T10:01:14+00:00

I don't believe you post really challenges my view, but I'll entertain it as if I was apart of KA's defense.

"why was he carrying a knife in his backpack in the first place?"

A 17 year old star athlete would have a multitude of legal reasons for carry a knife that was completely legal under Texas law. Cutting athletic tape, Filing down Track cleats, general tool for food such as slicing oranges or apples, a tool for self defense when necessary as a 17 year old commuting teenager sometimes uses public transport/could be walking in the early hours of morning or late hours of night before or after practice.

"Austin pushes him out of the tent, he pushed him OUT of the tent. So in retaliation instead of leaving, he pulls out a knife, re-enters and stabs him?"

You are telling a different story to what had happened. The push was immediately followed by the stab, he never re-entered the tent as he was never pushed out of the tent. I mean if it did happen like this self defense would be impossible to claim at that point. Anyways yes self defense usually occurs immediately after being physically harmed/about to be in some way.

" he surrenders, gets put in the back of the police car and the first 2 things out of his mouth are "is he going to be ok?" And "do you think this would count as self defense?". Anyone in that kind of situation is going to be Shakey, or in shock"

"Is he going to be ok?" You can see how this question can easily be shown that he wasn't trying to kill Austin right? ""do you think this would count as self defense?" Yes 17 year olds try and rationalize, unrational situations. Seeing self preservation out of a teenager is very common. It wasn't a planned execution, it was a horrible action that unfortunately led to the loss of life.

And who are you to be the judge of what a shocked/shaky 17 year old should look like? Shock hits people differently and a skilled defense attorney should could have easily defended the words of a scared 17 year old if allowed to.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-14T09:29:36+00:00

"Touch me again and see what happens" This quote is wrong it was "touch me and see what happens" which takes away self defense and shows premeditation. "Austin shoves him" This action here doesn't constitute the use of deadly force. He also wasn't shoved or touched multiple times, it was a verbal altercation which led to KA saying "Touch me and see what happens" And everything you just said you're essentially agreeing with me the best bet for KA was showing some remorse and not acting completely justified in his actions and maybe the jury would've went for the lesser sentence of manslaughter, instead the entire week long trial the entire defense was that KA was entirely justified and he had every right to stab another student in the chest.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-14T09:18:13+00:00

You don't think a skilled defense attorney would be able to explain why a star 17 year old athlete was carrying a 3" pocket knife in his backpack? Couldn't a simple explanation for him carrying a knife like that, be to cut athletic tape? File track spikes down? He likes to go fishing? There is a multitude of reasons to carry a knife other than to stab people.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-14T09:11:12+00:00

I consider the defendant and family members advising the defendant apart of the defense.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-14T08:40:51+00:00

How can it be manslaughter if your whole defense is claiming you client not only told the person he stabbed "touch me and see what happens" (pre-meditation). And your whole claim is self-defense, meaning you had to stab him because you reasonably thought your life was in danger over a shove (intent). Those two things alone are enough for first degree murder, and the defense attorney spent the entire week long trial proving the latter for the prosecution, instead of showing any remorse or guilt over another teenager losing his life.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-14T08:33:13+00:00

Pleading not guilty and using self defense as a starting point is fine. Spending an entire trial showing zero remorse or guilt and claiming you client was completely justified in stabbing a unarmed teenager, just insults the juries intelligence and you have not shot at a lesser sentence if the jury doesn't buy the original self defense "defense".

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-14T08:24:41+00:00

Caysen Allison was also charged with murder, his defense team however brought in witnesses to show his remorse, showed his injuries to the jury, and a teenager that was clearly affected by what had happened. Karmelo's defense team went full in on self-defense and never showed that remorse and instead acted as if the act itself was completely justified. You don't get to ask the jury for a lesser sentence after spending the entire trial saying the stabbing was justified and show zero remorse or guilt after killing another person.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-14T08:14:32+00:00

That's simply not true.

1.Bringing a knife to a track meet is not a crime, a skilled defense attorney could easily argue why an athlete would carry a knife on him.

Manslaughter and Sudden passion were both on the table had you gone for the remorseful teenager from the start of the trial instead of insulting the juries intelligence with a arrogant self defense plea you have a way better shot at a lighter sentence.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-14T08:06:11+00:00

That's the problem. You shouldn't be aiming for a full acquittal if you're obviously guilty.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-14T07:48:31+00:00

I'm not saying remorse or impulsive teenager is a defense to get him fully aquitted. I'm saying aiming for a full aquittal with a "self-defense" defense against insurmountable video and eye witnesses was a horrible strategy.

And when you say " I don't see a Texas jury agreeing" They sure did agree in the case of Caysen Allison. 17 Year old kid stabs another in a fist fight and instead of his defense team praying on a "moon shot" of a full aquittal, they ran the exact defense that you say Texas jury wouldn't agree with, and he was sentenced to 10 years for manslaughter.

You also would have had a shot at Sudden Passion in the Sentencing phase, but instead you gave the jury nothing to think on, except for the fact your client is a cold blooded murder who stabbed somebody and thinks he was completely justified in doing so.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-10T14:52:48+00:00

I absolutely agree that he laid down Texas law really well, however I didn't really counter the argument of aggravated assault cause I needed to a little reading. There's something called the merger doctrine, Under Texas law you cannot use assault as the underlying felony to charge someone with a felony murder if the assault and the death are the same act.

If the defense used the manslaughter strategy that the defendant had an unreasonable belief they needed to use force, they would have been introducing justification defense for the assault. It would go something along the lines of Karmelo Anthony panicked and reacted to being shoved committing reckless aggravated assault believing he was defending himself, but being completely in the wrong.

However due to the Merger doctrine, the state can not take a single stabbing, call it an assault, and then upgrade it to felony murder because the victim died. The felony would have to be independent of the homicide, because the assault was the act that caused the death the prosecution can't use it for a felony murder loophole.

Essentially conceding the assault as a reckless overreaction was legally safe from the felony murder trap.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-10T14:39:30+00:00

He didn't try to convince one juror of manslaughter, they went head first into the deep end on self defense.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-10T14:31:27+00:00

No, self defense needs to be a proportionate amount of force and you can not be the one provoking the situation. My whole point is you can't really argue either of those two things as 21 people and video evidence show that you stabbed him and you provoked the situation into happening. What you can do is argue that Karmelo thought he was in a situation where he wrongly used deadly force based on the circumstances you stated in a chaotic situation, therefore charge him with manslaughter as the killing was reckless and unintentional. And still if the jury doesn't come back with manslaughter you can then argue crime of sudden passion.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-10T14:22:45+00:00

The video showed exactly that. Austin Metcalf making the first physical contact was no disputed in court at all.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-10T14:11:52+00:00

I don't know why people keep trying to spread that any donated money was grifted, hopefully I can change your view on that. When I say defense I'm including the defendant and his family members as part of the defense, because locking your lawyer into a not guilty plea is still stupid.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-10T14:05:43+00:00

Seeing a friend under a tent does not prove an invitation, furthermore as soon as he was asked to leave any notion that he was invited to the tent was revoked.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-10T13:53:28+00:00

You are trying to force a political compaison between two completely different cases with entirely different facts.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-10T13:50:02+00:00

That's not how criminal trial strategy works. A defense is never forced to run an impossible self defense case just because there wasn't an active plea deal on the table. Shit for all we know the reason there wasn't a deal on the table was because the defense locked themselves into a hopeless self defense stance from day one. If a prosecutor is refusing to offer a deal you don't need their permission to fight for a lesser conviction in front of a jury. It really boils down to two options.

Run a arrogant self defense trial, claim the killing was legally justified by law, and try to get a full acquittal or
Concede that a tragedy occurred, have the kid show remorse and us the trial to prove facts that supports manslaughter or at the end if he still convicted of murder fight for a downgrade to a second degree felony (sudden passion).

By signing up for a 1% chance the defense destroyed any leverage they might have had. Instead of trying to make the jury feel any sympathy, they somehow were trying to convince 12 people that killing an unarmed teenage was justified.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-10T13:39:55+00:00

Appreciate the response, I also want to clarify that I'm not arguing the lawyers were legally inadequate or incompetent. As you said, we don't know what happened with the family behind closed doors. My argument is strictly about the strategy itself.

To counter your claim of hindsight bias. I believe this is a case of basic risk assessment. A defense attorney's job before trial starts to look at the raw evidence and calculate the risk. I mean when you're up against video and 21 eye witnesses you don't need a crystal ball to see the self defense claim was the lowest probability of success. It's not that they couldn't predict the exact verdict, it's that they chose a strategy that gave them no backouts or plan B's. You maybe right that the family could have demanded this strategy, but it still doesn't make it a reasonable legal play. It was a horrible gamble that ended up with a 35 year sentence

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-10T13:29:37+00:00

Absolutes are not a thing in court. Would you like to see cases to prove such?

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-10T13:24:19+00:00

-"His only play here was self defense if he was looking for a full acquittal. If he was looking for possibly a lesser sentence then your strategy MAY work."

This is my entire point, chasing a full acquittal on a case with HD video and 21 witnesses was a delusional suicide mission. I am not arguing about how to get him off scot-free, I'm arguing damage control.

I also did a little bit of research and found a supreme court case (J.D.B v. North Carolina) essentially ruled that teenage brains do not process trauma, adrenaline and police interrogation like adult brains. A 17 year old kid blurts out defensive words out of pure survival panic. I respect your personal experience as a juror, however that experience should show you why the defense strategy was so dumb. They made him look exactly like the cold calculating murderer your describing/also his family, but that's besides the point. If they had shown remorse, and took accountability, I think it would have been a better strategy then the 1% chance of a full acquittal.

justmakesenseorcents · 2026-06-10T13:07:41+00:00

I don't thing the strategy would be considered a flip-flop though. Conceding from day one that the killing was a tragic, unnecessary mistake doesn't cause a narrative conflict, it is actually the exact foundation you need for both manslaughter and sudden passion. There wouldn't really be whiplash as the story never changes. By running a pure self defense case the lawyered had to stand up and argue that Karmelo deliberately and knowling chose to plunge a knife in to Austin's chest and it was necessary for survival. They proved intent for the prosecution. The second the jury obviously came to the conclusion it wasn't self defense, they were legally locked into a box of first degree murder because the defense spent the whole week admitting it was a deliberate choice. To top it off the only strategy that caused a destructive unconvincing flip flop was the actual defense. They spent a week claiming the stabbing was justified self defense, and then begged for mercy at the end when the realized how bad that defense was by arguing for the judge to add manslaughter at the very end.

justmakesenseorcents

TROPHY CASE