Karmelo Anthony Trial Judge Removed Over Post-Trial Comments
The defense team claimed the presiding judge was biased due to his post-verdict comments.
A Texas judge granted Karmelo Anthony’s request to remove the trial judge who presided over his trial due to his post-trial comments.
A jury convicted Anthony, now 19, of the murder of Austin Metcalf at a track meet last year.
Anthony received a 35-year sentence, but his defense team immediately sought a new trial.
The team’s main complaint was that Judge John Roach was biased, but they also insisted the jury didn’t get clear instructions, that “the trial was effectively closed to the public,” and that “that prosecutors did not honor an off-the-record evidentiary agreement.”
Visiting Judge Sid Harle presided today. From Fox News:
Judge John Roach, who presided over Anthony’s June murder trial, was removed after Anthony’s attorneys played Roach’s post-trial WFAA interview in court and argued his remarks showed he had already prejudged the defense’s request for a new trial.
Harle said Wednesday he did not know Roach and described recusal as a high bar. He said he did not find that Roach violated judicial conduct rules and believed Roach could be fair.
But Harle said the question was not whether Roach could be fair. He found that a third party looking at Roach’s public comments could question the judge’s impartiality and granted the recusal motion.
In June, Roach told WFAA:
When asked whether the jury reached the correct verdict, Roach offered a direct response.
“Yes they did because they were picked based upon the law, they listened to the facts, it happened in this courtroom, and they got a verdict,” he said. WFAA ended its interview asking about the judge’s brief interactions with the now-convicted Karmelo Anthony.
“He seems like a nice young man who committed a crime and he understands today more than any day before the consequences of committing a crime like he did,” Roach said.
Roach said he believes Collin County’s handling of the trial should serve as a model for other jurisdictions dealing with high-profile cases.
Presiding Judge Ray Wheless will appoint a new judge on Thursday at a hearing over the motion for a new trial.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
A NICE YOUNG MAN
Karmelo Anthony killed a nice young man.
His family took money from nice young men.
The fanatics that chanted outside the courthouse threatened nice young men.
He is a stupid brat who thinks he is entitled to the killing of another for a minor inconvenience and his defense team is a group of amberlamps chasing weasels that never met a black criminal they didn’t love for the simple fact they end white lives.
Please don’t make us correct this farce ourselves. It will be a horrible chapter in our history.
Segregation is the answer.
Mass deportations to the “dark continent” should be the answer.
They can’t go “home” again. Other than an abundance of melanin, they are as American as country ham and red eye gravy in the eyes of real Africans. They also “look” different as genetics (including white genes) have altered them. All of the relative protective traits are now gone or faded… leaving a few hard ones in place like sickle cell disease or trait. It would be interesting to see if the diseases that affect Blacks here such as diabetes and heart disease ease up when returned to Africa.
More BS. Hopefully he will get shived soon in prison and save the taxpayers the cost of another trial.
His parents have been living the good life off donations from anti-white racists who appreciate him murdering “the oppressor.” Why don’t he and his parasitic lawyers do his parents and the world at large a favor, and just give it up?
Watch them grant this evil piece of trash a new trial and hang it. Just watch.
He’ll get out and the. Sue the Anthony’s and the state for violating his civil rights. Again watch. This is sick and disgusting
Doubtful. They didn’t even say the judge messed up…just that the “public” (aka the low info mob) may misconstrue the comments. Therefore, assign a new judge to reject a desperate ploy to set aside the verdict.
You mean sue the Metcalfs?
I think this is a good thing. When a new judge denies the appeal, the defense won’t have any recourse.
What makes you think a new judge will deny the appeal. The recusal of the old judge for bias already substantiates part of the appeal,
So, what really changes? The evidence was straightforward, Karmelo stabbed Anthony Metcalf. The trial court had room for 23 spectators, first come, first seated. If there was a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ about evidence, then where is the motion regarding it? If they feel that blacks on the jury would make a difference when confronted with the evidence presented in the case, then we have a problem with dishonest jurors.
That will presumably be in the motion that they will make once a new judge is allocated.
Do we know if Anthony’s defense team is asking for a change of venue, in addition to a new trial and a new judge?
The “gentlemen’s agreement’ is really null and void as I understand it from trial coverage and several lawyers whom I respect that followed the details closely. The agreement was to keep Anthony’s quite negative background out of the record. However, once Anthony took the stand, his character and history is on the table as is the case for any witness. Unfortunately for him, he had to take the stand. There was no defense without that, and his own defense testimony wasn’t going to help.
with the caveat that my information is based on posts on social media, and thus I dont know the accuracy of the posts.
Based on the social media accounts , the gentlemens argreement dealt with keeping the following out of evidence:
Karmelo ‘s girl friend broke up with him than morning or the day before and karmelo threatended to stab someone out of anger. Also some indications that the girlfriend know the decedent.
Again my comment is based on social media comments, so I cant vouch for the accuracy.
jagibbons:
“Unfortunately for him, he had to take the stand.”
Karmelo Anthony did not testify in his trial.
Austin Metcalf.
No, it doesn’t. He was only removed for bias after the trial. There’s nothing on the record to show that he was biased before or during the trial, which is what they need to show to get a new one.
He wasn’t even removed for bias.
“But Harle said the question was not whether Roach could be fair. He found that a third party looking at Roach’s public comments could question the judge’s impartiality and granted the recusal motion.”
He was not recused for bias. Read the ruling.
The defense still has the right to appeal to the Texas CA5 (not the federal CA5) or the Texas CA4, and then to the Texas court of criminal appeals ( the equivalent to the texas supreme court for criminal matters). Then a final appeal to the US supreme court, though that appeal will likely be limited to the baston challenge. One caveat – is that i dont recall if collin county appeals go to the texas ca5 or the texas ca4 and I dont have time to look it up
There is an open professorship at Cambridge University.
I hear that Arday is off the short-list for the new Des Moines school superintendent.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Roach’s comments were incredibly mild compared to the invective spat by the J6 judges, and yet he recused, and they did not. I keep thinking of the courtroom scene in Heavy Metal.
He was removed only from presiding over the motion for a new trial. Obviously once he said the trial was fair he can’t fairly judge a motion that it was not. There is no implication that he was biased during the trial.
The J6 judges only “spat invective” at sentencing, after the defendants were convicted. So again, no bias. But having expressed themselves at that point, they would not have been able to fairly judge a motion for a new trial.
Ah…but the sentencing is the real issue. Reverting back to off to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread type sentencing. The judges were in a competition to up the sentences to find favor in the eyes of D.C.
1. At sentencing a judge is supposed to assume guilt. But not when hearing a motion for a new trial.
2. Transportation was technically available as a sentence for petty theft, but it was pretty rare. Generally only grand theft (stealing at least a shilling’s value), which was a felony and eligible for the death penalty, resulted in transportation, which was a mercy because it was instead of hanging.
At any rate, we’re discussing an analogy between this judge and the J6 judges. The J6 judges, having expressed themselves after conviction in such intemperate manner, would have been very vulnerable to removal from hearing any motion for a new trial. But I don’t remember anyone making such a motion.
Judges should probably be humble enough to stay out of media and if pressed give a basic response ‘the USA in general and this Judicial Circuit in particular have the finest system of justice in the world b/c a jury of a dozen Citizens review the evidence and render their verdict’.
This is throwing a bone to the hungry dogs that feed on contrived narratives over facts. They will barely get any scraps on this one.
The murderous thug sociopath is a “nice man,” when he’s not instigating fights for the purpose of stabbing innocent people in the heart.
“Yes they did because they were picked based upon the law, they listened to the facts, it happened in this courtroom, and they got a verdict,” he said. WFAA ended its interview asking about the judge’s brief interactions with the now-convicted Karmelo Anthony.
This is literally in the post trial jury instructions in Pennsylvania. The judge tells the jury they got it right because they were the jury. No one else sat as they did and heard and saw what they did. In every single jury trial.
Yes, but it means that when the defendant moves for a new trial alleging that the original trial was flawed, and that the jury got it wrong, a judge who’s already said he’s satisfied the trial was fair is biased against the motion, so he shouldn’t hear it.
No it really doesn’t. He said the verdict was correct because the proper process was followed.
And judge saying the verdict is correct shouldn’t disqualify him in any event. For instance, the majority of trials are non-jury trials. The judge decides guilt. When the defendant is convicted they file a motion to reconsider the verdict alleging insufficient evidence. It goes to the same judge that convicted him. If the judge denies that, which they do as a matter of course, the judge still doesn’t refuse himself. If the car is appealed and somehow ends up being sent back for a new trial, guess who gets the case? That’s right, the same judge.
If the guy who heard the evidence and actually decided the defendant is guilty still doesn’t have to recuse, there’s no way the judge who makes the bland statement that the correct process was followed should have to.
No, it means they would have to show where the process wasn’t fair.
Indeed to get a new trial they will have to show that. All they got now was that they’ll get their chance to try to show it before a different judge. They won’t have to go to the same judge who publicly said the process was fair and argue that it wasn’t. They still have to convince the new judge that they deserve a new trial, and that’s going to be difficult to do because there were no obvious flaws.
I agree absolutely that the Judge should not preside in future hearings, just to avoid later problems. There’s an old rule of thumb – when in court you want to be arguing about what the defendant did, not about what the prosecution (or Judge) did or didn’t do.
If the case can stand on its merits then a different judge should make no change to the outcome. The same holds true with a change of venue. If it slows the process, well, so be it. Karmelo has 35 years with nothing else pending on his schedule.
what difference can a judge’s post-trial, after-the-fact statements/opinions make ?–particularly in the face of the defendant’s proclamation at the scene in the presence of many witnesses (white and black) ” it’s not alleged, i did it ”
that we’re now supposed to go to the expense of another trial that for all intents and purposes was by the book, decided by the jury on hearing / weighing all the evidence and commensurate with the severity of the crime–and the victim is still dead–his family and his community lost a promising young man
Did you read the post? A judge’s post-trial statement that the trial verdict was correct makes him too biased to hear a motion alleging the trial was wrong and asking for a new trial. He’s already prejudged the motion, so how can he fairly hear it?
Only if a new judge who has not prejudged whether the trial was fair and the verdict correct agrees with the defense motion that it was not. If he does, then of course the defendant deserves a new trial. If he does not agree, then there will be no new trial.
Did you read the post?
The judge ruling on the appeal did not say the presiding judge was biased.
“But Harle said the question was not whether Roach could be fair. He found that a third party looking at Roach’s public comments could question the judge’s impartiality and granted the recusal motion.”
That he could be fair doesn’t mean he’s not biased. He’s prejudged the motion; but he’s fair-minded enough that he could be persuaded he was wrong. Still, having said in public what he thinks of the motion he shouldn’t be the one to hear it.
None of this has any bearing on the trial itself, during which there’s no indication that he prejudged anything. He was there, he heard the testimony, and he reached the same conclusion as the jury did. That’s not at all surprising. But it means that someone else should hear the motion for a new trial; someone who will come to it fresh, so when he turns it down no one can question it.
True…. the outcome is the issue…. can restorative justice finally be found? Chauvin is in prison for something he didn’t do and Anthony must be acquitted for something he did do. The real white villain is Eli Whitney.
Anthony is unlikely to get a new trial, and if he does get one he’s unlikely to be acquitted the second time either.
Indeed he may come out of a second trial considerably worse off than he did from his first one. Death is not available, and neither is life without parole, but he could end up with considerably more than the 35 years he got the first time. If I were in his shoes I’d be very wary of rolling those dice again.
I think all the rancor here is due to the awful headline:
“Karmelo Anthony Trial Judge Removed…”
The real action doesn’t invalidate anything the judge did, including the verdict.
All it says is that if there IS to be an appeal, someone else will be handling the motion.
When Karmelo’s lawyers first started this noise, I stated here or maybe on another website that the lawyers are fishing to get a Leftist judge who will give Karmelo a new trial on the slimmest of procedural reasons, mainly that there were no blacks on his jury. His lawyers want a jury stacked with blacks, to throw out as much of the prosecutions evidence as possible and also disallow many of the prosecutions witnesses as biased (they knew Austin Metcalf). One way to do this if they get a new trial is to move the trial to Dallas County which borders Collin County. It wouldn’t surprise me that if they get the judge they want, if Karmelo is again found to be guilty, the judge will over ride the jury and say “Karmelo, he dindonufun scept protect hisself”.
I don’t care. What difference does it make? There is no way to dispute what happened in broad daylight, numerous witnesses, a confession, DNA all over the place. Whatever the judge says or does is not pertinent.
Defense hasn’t got much to work with. Gotta hand it to them.
An OJ jury can free him.
The new judge will, no doubt, be both black and female.
But but he’s only a lad!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js4yGcgO6hk
SOCIETY MADE HIM!
All the prisoners are singing “Lipstick On Your Collar”
Swift justice and a death penalty without delay would prevent such judicial tom foolery. A corpse would struggle to make an appeal.
Then what do you do if it turns out that there was an injustice, and the defendant does deserve a new trial? Let alone if it turns out that he was actually innocent after all?
That is so far-fetched given the facts…the facts from the first trial are still the same facts.
We are no longer talking about this case, since the death penalty was never available in this case. By writing that “Swift justice and a death penalty without delay would prevent such judicial tom foolery” you changed the subject to capital cases in general, and you suggested that swift execution ought to be the norm, without allowing time for appeals. The problem with that is that sometimes the convict really is innocent. The appeals have to be allowed, in order to minimize the risk of irreparable injustice.
Ahhh. The misfits want a new trial claiming “bias,” yet hoping a new judge/jury will be biased toward the defense. That’s what this is about.
What the hell is wrong with this country? Karmelo admitted doing it; witnesses testified, etc. etc. So now FACTS can be biased when the criminal is the “victim” and the actual victim cannot defend himself because he’s dead.
While many here are focusing on the guilt of Anthony and the possible appeal, the fact of the matter is that the judge is a fool.
One of the things that are part of the judicial cannons is that you don’t talk about any case that is still ongoing (as this one is,) a case that is being investigated, or that at case that may come to a trial.
You just do not do it. Period.
It doesn’t matter what the content of the comment is. You just don’t do it.
That is Judicial 101.
At the time he made the comments the case was over. It was not ongoing, there was no investigation, there was no trial expected. There still isn’t; there’s only the theoretical possibility of one.
The case wasn’t over.
This judge was the one who was going to rule on a motion for a new trial.
I have no idea why you don’t know that a case is not over until all appeals, motions, etc., are exhausted.
The fact that you say that there is a “theoretical possibility of new trial,” show the case wasn’t over.
To the best of my recollection, no such motion was forthcoming at the time. What was expected was an appeal to a higher court.
From the post: Presiding Judge Ray Wheless will appoint a new judge on Thursday at a hearing over the motion for a new trial.
From a link in the post at Fox5:
Hearings are set for next month as Karmelo Anthony seeks a new trial, six weeks after he was sentenced to prison for the fatal stabbing of Austin Metcalf at a Frisco track meet stabbing.
What we know: Anthony’s legal team is seeking a new trial over claims that the trial was effectively closed to the public, that prosecutors did not honor an off-the-record evidentiary agreement, and that instructions to the jury made it difficult for them to consider Anthony acted in self-defense.
They also asked for Judge John Roach to be removed from post-trial hearings because of his alleged bias.
Even if there is an appeal to a higher court, that means the case is not over.
The case is over when the judgement is entered and all appeals are exhausted.
in other words, you’re wrong on the law and wrong on the facts.
Yes I don’t understand why he is talking to a media outlet, even if the case was almost over. Do they not have a code of judicial ethics forbidding that?
Why is a judge giving an interview on a radio station about one of his cases?
Because the case was over.
The case wasn’t over.
In fact, Judge Roach was supposed to hear a motion on a new trial.
A case ends when there is a judgement is entered and all appeals are exhausted.
You should know that.
Leave a Comment