Agreed but in my mind him possessing the knife comes very close to premeditation.

About to get started with the fourth day of testimony in the Karmelo Anthony trial. Possible the defense rests today, I am being told. Defense called three witnesses Saturday: a Centennial HS coach and two students. When the state rests, the jury will deliberate if Karmelo is…

— MaryAnn Martinez (@MaryAnnreports) June 8, 2026

Defense done today?

Yeah 57 sucks for a high school male. The coach testified that for his event it made sense he was there that early so that tells me he was doing a field event most likely. (or the 3200 but, yeah... no). Not that any of it really matters but it is weird they haven't been clear what event he was doing considering the earlier (i'll say rumors because we don't know for sure) that he wasn't supposed to be at the meet. That coach also said it was completely normal to be hanging out at other teams tents which is a lie so take all that with a grain of salt.

bonfarr said:

---

Has there been any testimony on why Anthony brought a knife to a track meet? If I was a juror I would want to know why the knife was in the bag and what was in Anthony's mind when he packed it. The track meet was on school property so he committed a crime just for possessing it. Was he expecting to get into an altercation? Hundreds of people there including coaches, admins, police, etc it wouldn't be difficult to avoid trouble at an athletic event so why do you need a blade unless you were the one looking for trouble.

His last SM post a few hours before the stabbing was a photo of him with a lighter giving the middle finger so sure looks to me like he was searching for trouble.

---

I'm sure the defense would love to engage the prosecution in a long back and forth about this topic. It would serve to muddy the waters about the fact KA committed murder.

bonfarr said:

---

Agreed but in my mind him possessing the knife comes very close to premeditation.

---

Premeditation is not an element of the crime.

A lot of people here seem to be wanting to do a deep dive into the weeds like a true crime podcast when the only question is whether or not KA was in reasonable fear for his life when he stabbed Metcalf. That's it. Anything else is just a distraction as some of the legal eagles on here have stated multiple times.

Why was he there?
Was he competing in the morning/afternoon/at all?
Why did he have a knife?
Was it raining?
Did he know anyone in the tent?

All these are irrelevant with regards to the trial. Going down any of those rabbit holes just introduces opportunities for a jury member to get confused and or try to develop a justifiable reason for why KA did what he did. The question is whether or not AM's action's rose to the level of putting a reasonable person in fear of their life and therefore justified in responding with deadly force.

IANAL, but having watched enough of these trials over the last few years, it is really easy for us non-legal folks to want to dissect every element of an event, the events before/after, and more when they are immaterial to the case before the jury.

Good thing we are not on the jury then

I appreciate the legal people on here answering questions on this thread. I have one more - and it might have already been discussed -

What are/were the plea deal strategies for both sides? This is so patently breaks every condition for a self defense claim, why wouldn't the defense try to get a better sentence - say to try for 25 years? I seems like the wildcard in this case, for both sides, is whether or not some activist is on the jury.

I'm all for a life sentence, but this guy 100% doesn't need to be on the street. If I were a prosecutor I think I would be ok with him being locked up for 25 or 30 years hoping that the guy that comes out when he is 45 or 50 as a better human being - versus the risk of them hitting some type of miracle and getting to completely walk.

And the defense, instead of going for all of nothing, with a very low chance of walking - why wouldn't you try to give him some type of life afterwards. Again, you would think if the defense offered up 25 years, the prosecution just might take the 100% deal.

Would someone mind discussing the mindsets of both sides?

It is Collin county and Judge Roach. You are going to get hammered in court. There likely was not a meaningful settlement offer from the prosecution due to this.

Having worked with Roach a few times and been in his office more than that, you know where he is headed before you entered the building.

The defense's only hope is that a jury will give them a miracle verdict. Otherwise, the writing was on the wall for this trial.

GaryClare said:

---

I appreciate the legal people on here answering questions on this thread. I have one more - and it might have already been discussed -

What are/were the plea deal strategies for both sides? This is so patently breaks every condition for a self defense claim, why wouldn't the defense try to get a better sentence - say to try for 25 years? I seems like the wildcard in this case, for both sides, is whether or not some activist is on the jury.

I'm all for a life sentence, but this guy 100% doesn't need to be on the street. If I were a prosecutor I think I would be ok with him being locked up for 25 or 30 years hoping that the guy that comes out when he is 45 or 50 as a better human being - versus the risk of them hitting some type of miracle and getting to completely walk.

And the defense, instead of going for all of nothing, with a very low chance of walking - why wouldn't you try to give him some type of life afterwards. Again, you would think if the defense offered up 25 years, the prosecution just might take the 100% deal.

Would someone mind discussing the mindsets of both sides?

---

the probability of anyone who goes to jail, coming out as a better human, is marginal at best.

most individuals who go in commit more crimes. sometimes, more heinous.

he murdered a good person who had his whole life in front of him. that deserves more than 25 years.

if he gets less than 50, we continue to find ourselves in the pattern of letting violent offenders off.

Odd question…..
Was anything else in the backpack? If empty except for the knife it would certainly be curious. I still lean towards the concept that he wanted to fill it with other peoples stuff.

YellAg2004 said:

---

A lot of people here seem to be wanting to do a deep dive into the weeds like a true crime podcast when the only question is whether or not KA was in reasonable fear for his life when he stabbed Metcalf. That's it. Anything else is just a distraction as some of the legal eagles on here have stated multiple times.

Why was he there?
Was he competing in the morning/afternoon/at all?
Why did he have a knife?
Was it raining?
Did he know anyone in the tent?

All these are irrelevant with regards to the trial. Going down any of those rabbit holes just introduces opportunities for a jury member to get confused and or try to develop a justifiable reason for why KA did what he did. The question is whether or not AM's action's rose to the level of putting a reasonable person in fear of their life and therefore justified in responding with deadly force.

IANAL, but having watched enough of these trials over the last few years, it is really easy for us non-legal folks to want to dissect every element of an event, the events before/after, and more when they are immaterial to the case before the jury.

---

If Karmelo did anything to provoke the incident (touch me and see what happens), anything, self-defense goes away. If he had left the tent when asked and Metcalf pursued him after he left, he might have a case. But that's not what happened.

One of the things they cover in LTC courses is what constitutes legal use of lethal force in a self-defense scenario. If you use lethal force after escalating an altercation, you're going to be a ward of the state for a while.

More testimony from first witness and cross examination
Defense:What did you see when you first noticed something was wrong?
Witness:I saw the arms go out I see arms and make contact with Karmelo

Defense:Can you see how much contact is being made with Melo?
Witness:no sir…

— J.D. Miles (@jdmiles11) June 8, 2026

From the prosecution's perspective, this is a very high profile case, meaning the voters are paying close attention. So any plea deal would have to include some serious time to be acceptable to them.

From Anthony's side, he does not want to go to prison first off. Any plea deal requires waiver of appeal rights which he would not want to do in the off chance the prosecution screws up somehow OR there is a rogue juror or two and a hung jury.

If there is a hung jury, I'd expect the county would retry him but that's also expensive. So maybe it would be worth it to reduce the recommended number of years to something more palatable to the defense.

bonfarr said:

---

Has there been any testimony on why Anthony brought a knife to a track meet? If I was a juror I would want to know why the knife was in the bag and what was in Anthony's mind when he packed it. The track meet was on school property so he committed a crime just for possessing it. Was he expecting to get into an altercation? Hundreds of people there including coaches, admins, police, etc it wouldn't be difficult to avoid trouble at an athletic event so why do you need a blade unless you were the one looking for trouble.

His last SM post a few hours before the stabbing was a photo of him with a lighter giving the middle finger so sure looks to me like he was searching for trouble.

---

I believe that Anthony is not taking the stand for questioning for the trial. So that question wouldn't get answered.

they got the defense's own witness to admit they were wrong in their original story and pointed out they were not looking at the tent until after the stabbing and KA running away.

Has there been a defense witness come out yet that did anything but bolster the prosecution's case?

The question about why he had the knife is something that would be in my head as a juror that I would want answered. It would up to the judge and attorneys to set me straight that I shouldn't consider it but going into the trial it would certainly be on my mind.

FriscoKid said:

---

More testimony from first witness and cross examination
Defense:What did you see when you first noticed something was wrong?
Witness:I saw the arms go out I see arms and make contact with Karmelo

Defense:Can you see how much contact is being made with Melo?
Witness:no sir…

— J.D. Miles (@jdmiles11) June 8, 2026

---

More testimony from first witness and cross examination
Defense:What did you see when you first noticed something was wrong?
Witness:I saw the arms go out I see arms and make contact with Karmelo

Defense:Can you see how much contact is being made with Melo?
Witness:no sir

Defense:Was that concerning to you at that point?
Witness:yes

Defense:You weren't sure this was a fight but you were concerned it could be a fight?
Witness:yes sir
I was running through all of the possibilities of it where this was a friend or not

Defense:What did you think next?
Witness: it got super loud and people started standing up and were like what happened

Defense: So you did not see the stab or the moments before that?
Witness: no

Defense:Is Melo seated?
Witness:no sir

Defense:What happened next?
Witness:What i saw was Austin pulling up his shirt saying he got stabbed

Defense: Do you see Melo at some point what was he doing?
Witness: kind of a light jog going to the right on the bleachers

Defense: Did you see him when he stopped?
Witness :he is crying and there with a coach kind of comforting him
I'd say distraught is the best way to describe

Defense: Did it look like a put on?
Witness: i'd say everything going on was very, very real

Defense: you could hear him crying?
Witness: yes sir i heard him saying i told him not to touch me
Defense:How was he, distraught?
Witness:yes very distraught

Defense:you didn't see large parts of what happened under the tent is that fair to say?
Witness:yes sir

Prosecutors cross examine witness

Prosecution:you had a few things wrong when we talked back in April is that right?
Witness:yes sir

Prosecution:your initial statement to police that you saw Karmelo Anthony surrounded so it had to be after the stabbing?
Witness:yes

Prosecution:you had a story in your head when we visited, correct?
Witness:yes

Prosecution:and when you saw the video your eyes were opened to what actually happened is that right?
Witness:yes

Prosecution:my impression when we first met you thought when you saw people surrounding Karmelo Anthony it was before the stabbing?
Witness:yes sir

Prosecution:That was actually after the stabbing?
Witness:i couldn't really tell

Prosecution:when you and i met you told me you thought it was before the stabbing?
Witness:I thought it was as the stabbing was happening

Prosecution:you know you're wrong?
Witness:yes sir

Prosecutors show video showing the witness on surveillance video from the stadium that reveal the witness was on the field not looking at the Memorial High School tent at the time of the stabbing happened

Have you learned how your mind can play tricks on you?
Yes sir

You didn't have a knife on you?
No sir

Have you ever been under another teams tent?
No sir

If you had been under another team's tent and they asked you to leave would you?
Yes sir

Redirect

Defense:I think you described people in a U shape around Melo?
Witness:Yes sir

So was that witness lying or was he trying to piece together what happened and made stuff up to fit his memory since he wasn't even looking at the tent when the stabbing happened?

bonfarr said:

---

The question about why he had the knife is something that would be in my head as a juror that I would want answered. It would up to the judge and attorneys to set me straight that I shouldn't consider it but going into the trial it would certainly be on my mind.

---

Should they read every jurors mind to make sure any superfluous questions get answered?

benefit of the doubt is trying to put things together that made sense of the aftermath they saw. Which is understandable to me...I would not expect what happened to happen at a track meet. I think the tell is the witness admitting they were wrong.

bonfarr said:

---

The question about why he had the knife is something that would be in my head as a juror that I would want answered. It would up to the judge and attorneys to set me straight that I shouldn't consider it but going into the trial it would certainly be on my mind.

---

Prosecution could stress that Anthony obviously knew the knife was inside and very accessible because he had grabbed it before anything had really happened. With the knife in hand is when Anthony baits Metcalf with the "touch me and find out." Repeat that a few times in closing.

With the knife in his hand and concealed, defendant says, "Touch me and find out."

Would that help you?

You got it right in my view. Eyewitness testimony is very unreliable at times. Many of our memories are "false".

BMX Bandit said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

The question about why he had the knife is something that would be in my head as a juror that I would want answered. It would up to the judge and attorneys to set me straight that I shouldn't consider it but going into the trial it would certainly be on my mind.

---

Should they read every jurors mind to make sure any superfluous questions get answered?

---

What? Im no legal expert but it is a reality that jurors go into a trial with questions in their head they think are relevant to the crime. If it has no legal bearing on the case then the attorneys have to convince the jury not to consider it. Jurors aren't legal experts like you obviously are.

If the undisputed testimony was Karmelo carried a pocket knife with him most days and grabbed the wrong bag that day, what would it change in this case?

He still had no justification to use it!

So now are the lawyers supposed to know every question each juror has?

I have competed at high school track meets and never considered bringing a weapon. I think him having the knife meant he was there to stir up trouble and was looking for a fight and he was in the tent provoking someone so he could pull out the weapon.

BMX Bandit said:

---

So now are the lawyers supposed to know every question each juror has?

---

I have no clue what point you are trying to make and at this point IDGAS.

bonfarr said:

---

I have competed at high school track meets and never considered bringing a weapon. I think him having the knife meant he was there to stir up trouble and was looking for a fight and he was in the tent provoking someone so he could pull out the weapon.

---

A juror can reasonably come to that conclusion based on the evidence (as reported) thus far. The judge will give an instruction regarding provocation negating self defense. So connecting Anthony holding the knife and saying, "Touch me and find out," could fit into such a narrative.

You are saying the lawyers have to answer questions in the minds of jurors. Im trying to figure out how they can do that.

To my knowledge, this judge doesn't allow juror questions.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

benefit of the doubt is trying to put things together that made sense of the aftermath they saw. Which is understandable to me...I would not expect what happened to happen at a track meet. I think the tell is the witness admitting they were wrong.

---

That was likely on a sworn statement too early on to police and both sets of attorneys, so he could still be in trouble even after admitting he was wrong now. You still fabricated evidence overall.

Any bets on whether KA takes the stand or not? This self defense claim is not being supported by witness testimony if you accept the reports coming out of the court room. Defendant truly looks caught between a rock and a hard place.
Is it better to hope for one rogue juror, a reversal on appeal or try to make your case on the stand and hope to survive a withering cross?

I don't think be testifies, but agree it seems to be his only shot.

Ms. Hawg,
For first degree murder in the State of Texas, is the sentence decided by the judge or the jury?
If that is selected by the defendant, when does the defendant make that selection? Pre-trial? Post-verdict?

It's the defendant's choice on sentencing. The election must be made prior to trial.