Texas judge denies new trial for convicted murderer Karmelo Anthony

Karmelo Anthony will not get a new trial. On Saturday, a Texas judge closed the door on his bid to overturn a murder conviction that has already cost him thirty-five years of his life. The decision came after two days of testimony in McKinney, where Anthony's former lawyers detailed what they believed was a broken promise—an unwritten agreement with prosecutors that prosecutors themselves later refused to honor.

The core dispute centered on a handshake deal, never committed to paper, between Anthony's original defense team and the state. The understanding, as his lawyers described it, was simple: both sides would keep damaging character evidence off limits to the jury. But on the final day of trial, prosecutors changed course. They told the defense that if Anthony took the stand to testify about what happened during a confrontation at a Frisco track meet, the agreement no longer applied. The defense team would have opened the door to character evidence by putting their client on the stand. Anthony, facing this sudden reversal, chose not to testify. His lawyers argued this choice—forced by prosecutorial ambiguity—violated his right to mount a self-defense claim.

Mike Howard, Anthony's lead defense attorney, testified that he understood the agreement to cover Anthony's testimony. On cross-examination, he conceded the lawyers had never explicitly discussed whether a testifying defendant fell under the arrangement's protection. Toby Shook, another member of the defense team, gave similar testimony, saying the original strategy had always assumed Anthony would take the stand. The defense even introduced a training presentation that the lead prosecutor, Bill Wirskye, had used in continuing legal education courses. One slide advised defense lawyers that the client "(probably) needs to testify." Yet when the moment came, prosecutors took a different position.

Wirskye disputed the characterization. He said the lawyers never discussed the specifics of what the agreement would allow if Anthony testified, and that prosecutors remained willing to honor it. The state's concern, he testified, was that testimony from Anthony or his mother could inadvertently open the door to character evidence the agreement was meant to keep sealed. It was a technical argument about what constitutes opening a door—and it left a nineteen-year-old defendant uncertain whether speaking in his own defense would expose him to evidence designed to make him look bad.

The judge who originally presided over Anthony's trial, John Roach, was removed from the new trial proceedings earlier in the week. Another judge found that Roach had compromised his appearance of impartiality by publicly stating the jury "got it right" and by defending several of his own trial decisions. That removal was significant enough to warrant a new hearing. Yet even with a fresh judge reviewing the case, the motion for a new trial was denied. Retired District Judge Michael Chitty did not detail his reasoning in his order. He simply reviewed the motion, the court record, evidence, arguments, briefs, and relevant case law—and said no.

Anthony was convicted in June of stabbing and killing Austin Metcalf, a seventeen-year-old, during an altercation at a Frisco track meet. A Collin County jury sentenced him to thirty-five years in prison. The conviction stands. The district attorney's office said it expected the decision and remains confident in the case. Anthony's challenge will now move to direct appeal, where the question of whether prosecutors broke an unwritten agreement, and whether that breach cost him his right to testify, will be litigated again—this time in a different courtroom, before judges who were not in the room when the deal was made.