TheRatt87 said:

---

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?

---

Judge, with guidance from the state Sentencing Commission's guidelines. It is up to the judge to consider any mitigating or aggravating circumstances when pronouncing sentence.

Mitigating factor would be his age. Aggravating factor would be the provocation while secretly armed with the knife.

I would be surprised if he testifies.

And if he does, I would be shocked if he came across well. He has shown no signs of composure and his entire world has reinforced an entitled response to being questioned.

rwpag71 said:

---

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?

---

Are there any thoughts on how long it will be before the defense rests? Going with rwpag's thoughts, the more witnesses the defense brings up, the worse it gets for KA.

BMX Bandit said:

---

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

---

This is what I think. Do some mocks to see how likable and afraid he can come off. The story is you were scared by a group, then blubber, then have some bull**** stories for the unflattering past the prosecution has. Play to the fear and you didn't mean to kill him - his statement after sets that up. Depending on that, you make a call. I don't think he can pull it off so they dont do it

risco Police Officer Beau Riley is the next witness for the defense in the crimes against children unit. He was called out to the stadium the day of the stabbing. He interviewed some of the witnesses in the field house near the football field. One of the witnesses was a Memorial track athlete who knew Karmelo Anthony and talked to him under the tent. He reviewed the cell phone of the student to check his camera roll and text messages and snapchat account.

Defenseid that examination take 30-40 minutes and try to find anything interesting or relevant?
Witness:I would describe the consent based search as being thorough

Defense attorney is getting officer to confirm that the knife was legal to carry in Texas and into stadiums

Defense:it would surprise you if schools had policies against such things?
Witness:no it would not

Witness excused

So is that knife legal to carry in TX?

Yes

Would it surprise you if schools told the students they couldn't bring that knife to school events?

No, it would not

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

---

Defense trying to use witnesses to paint a picture Melo was surrounded and getting threatened with a gang style beat down. Sounds like the prosecution illuminated that the defense witness was fooled initially into thinking the crowd around Melo was preceding the stabbing when it was actually after.

Kind of a Catch-22 for the defense.

Defendant has to feel his life is threatened to claim self defense.

No way to know he felt his life was threatened without putting him on he stand.

Amber Guyger had to go on the stand for this reason.

I have not been following everything but it sounds like KA brought a pocket knife to the track meet and had his hand in the bag. Difficult to see since his hand was in there but how quick he attacked AM the blade was open which leads to intent. Opening up a pocket knife is not the easiest when trying to do it inside a bag unless some thought has gone into it.

Hate that this case is so much about race and not a 17 year old making a series of bad decisions.

I guess I'm slow. What's the point of this line of questioning? Even if it's not against the law to carry a knife, if the district says no weapons, that means no weapons. Right?

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?

---

That's a great question and is really getting into the nuts of the practice of criminal law.

First, for parole purposes, any sentence over 60 years (with a few exceptions) is considered 60 years. So if KA gets life, for parole purposes his sentence is considered 60 years. Which, if the parole board follows the law, he would have to spend a minimum 1/2 of his sesntence, or 30 years, before he would be eligible for parole. I could talk for hours about how FU our parole laws, or maybe how our parole laws are applied, are in TX. But I will not digress.

I am sure the DA made a very high offer to get this case resolved without a trial. My guess would be 40 to 45 year offer. If KA had taken that offer then he would not be eligible for parole for 20 to 22.5 years. Half of his sentence. So in reality, by going to trial, he is only risking approximately 10 years (half of 60 years v. half of 40 years).And has been previously mentioned, juries can do crazy things. So risking 10 years against a possible but not probable "Not Guilty" verdict is worth the risk in his family's eyes. And probably in his attorneys' eyes also.

I know or know of all the attorneys involved in this trial. They are some of the smartest and best in the state. There will not be any reversible error in this trial. Between the atorneys on each side they have tried 100s if not 1000s of cases. It will be a well tried case.

And for you Dallas County Ags, Dallas County had the chance to elect Toby Shook DA several elections ago. I think it was the crooked Craig Watkins who won that election. Best thing that ever happened to Toby. He is probably worth millions now.

fc2112 said:

---

Kind of a Catch-22 for the defense.

Defendant has to feel his life is threatened to claim self defense.

No way to know he felt his life was threatened without putting him on he stand.

Amber Guyger had to go on the stand for this reason.

---

And difficult to think he feared for his life considering he thought he was around a bunch of ******* (per witness testimony as I understand)

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Kind of a Catch-22 for the defense.

Defendant has to feel his life is threatened to claim self defense.

No way to know he felt his life was threatened without putting him on he stand.

Amber Guyger had to go on the stand for this reason.

---

And difficult to think he feared for his life considering he thought he was around a bunch of ******* (per witness testimony as I understand)

---

And it doesn't matter whether or not he feared for his life if he had a part in escalating the situation.

So it's murder and nothing else?

So the whole defense is a Hail Mary pass? Maybe he gets lucky with a hesitant juror and they talk them into splitting the baby with manslaughter?

Ex Ex Officio Director said:

---

I guess I'm slow. What's the point of this line of questioning? Even if it's not against the law to carry a knife, if the district says no weapons, that means no weapons. Right?

---

IDK. It was a defense witness.

Ex Ex Officio Director said:

---

I guess I'm slow. What's the point of this line of questioning? Even if it's not against the law to carry a knife, if the district says no weapons, that means no weapons. Right?

---

Likewise, it is legal to carry a gun in Texas. Unless you choose to go into a place that prohibits guns. Then it is illegal.

It really seem that the only path for the defense is to bring up abstract points to distract the jurors from the facts of the law.

fc2112 said:

---

So the whole defense is a Hail Mary pass? Maybe he gets lucky with a hesitant juror and they talk them into splitting the baby with manslaughter?

---

Beats me. I'm not an attorney, nor do I pretend to be one. I'm just a dude who took a LTC course where it was pounded into us the various scenarios and actions one can take to disqualify one from successfully claiming self-defense in the use of lethal force.

Everything I've read concerning this leads me to believe that under our state laws, Karmelo should be convicted of murder and sentenced to life (justice would be the death penalty, but not possible in this instance due to state laws and Karmelo's age at the time of the crime).

Is there a chance this goes to the jury today?

There is a really good article in today's Dallas Morning News about Shook and Wirskye being such good friends and working together so much. It is behind a pay was so I have not been able to read it yet. A mutual friend just sent me a text about it.

Got a Natty! said:

---

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?

---

That's a great question and is really getting into the nuts of the practice of criminal law.

First, for parole purposes, any sentence over 60 years (with a few exceptions) is considered 60 years. So if KA gets life, for parole purposes his sentence is considered 60 years. Which, if the parole board follows the law, he would have to spend a minimum 1/2 of his sesntence, or 30 years, before he would be eligible for parole. I could talk for hours about how FU our parole laws, or maybe how our parole laws are applied, are in TX. But I will not digress.

I am sure the DA made a very high offer to get this case resolved without a trial. My guess would be 40 to 45 year offer. If KA had taken that offer then he would not be eligible for parole for 20 to 22.5 years. Half of his sentence. So in reality, by going to trial, he is only risking approximately 10 years (half of 60 years v. half of 40 years).And has been previously mentioned, juries can do crazy things. So risking 10 years against a possible but not probable "Not Guilty" verdict is worth the risk in his family's eyes. And probably in his attorneys' eyes also.

I know or know of all the attorneys involved in this trial. They are some of the smartest and best in the state. There will not be any reversible error in this trial. Between the atorneys on each side they have tried 100s if not 1000s of cases. It will be a well tried case.

And for you Dallas County Ags, Dallas County had the chance to elect Toby Shook DA several elections ago. I think it was the crooked Craig Watkins who won that election. Best thing that ever happened to Toby. He is probably worth millions now.

---

Thank you for the outstanding explanation! This is all very fascinating.

BMX Bandit said:

---

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.

---

What are you talking about? I'm not saying the attorneys have a Q&A with jurors to answer their questions. Every juror that walks into a courtroom and hears testimony will come up with questions in their minds that they think relevant and it is the responsibility of the attorneys to either provide evidence to answer those questions or provide instruction that tells the jury what is relevant to the case and that they don't consider anything else.

It's like motive. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove a motive to convict someone of murder but you can bet that every juror listening to testimony is thinking about it.

Sea Speed said:

---

Is there a chance this goes to the jury today?

---

A chance but I would guess tomorrow. The attorneys and the judge still have to get together and prepare the Jury Charge (that is the document the jury takes into the jury room that sets out the law applicable to this case along with the verdict forms).

Someone asked, is this Murder or nothing. We will not know until the Judge reads the jury charge to the jury right before closing arguments begin. The defense will argue for a lesser charge but, as strong as the evidence has been, the DA will argue against a lesser charge. But sometimes, when the prosecutor is feeling very confident about his/her case, he will agree to the lesser charge, knowing that the jury will go with murder. By doing that he cuts off a possible appellate challenge.

So all that will take some time.

Ok, it looks like this is from around 11 am:

Frisco High School track athlete testifies
The next witness to testify was 17-year-old student at Frisco High School who was at the April 2, 2025 track meet.
The witness said he was standing by the gates of Kuykendall Stadium and had a limited view of the commotion in the bleachers.
"Everybody was standing up and I saw somebody get pushed or get punched, I don't know which," he told the defense attorney.
On cross-examination, the prosecution had the witness admit he does not remember all of the details from that day and that his memories did not fully line up with the video evidence.

Why is the defense continually bringing up witnesses that are not able to support their case? What is the thought process and strategy for putting up such bad (for their case) witnesses?

KA has a better reason for stabbing his attorneys than he did for what got him in this mess in the first place.

Sea Speed said:

---

Is there a chance this goes to the jury today?

---

Possible but not probable. If defense rests today, there are still closing arguments. There are the jury instructions to discuss between counsel and the judge.

OTOH, the state knows how many witnesses defense plans to call and they can pass on cross exam to speed things up. From what I have read, these defense witnesses are not hurting the state's case so little need for rigorous and lengthy cross.

sam callahan said:

---

I would be surprised if he testifies.

And if he does, I would be shocked if he came across well. He has shown no signs of composure and his entire world has reinforced an entitled response to being questioned.

---

If KA's attorney's see this like we do with little hope for the thug not receiving a guilty verdict, the last resort IMO could be putting him on the stand and let him cry profusely that he never intended to kill anyone and is over-the-top remorseful(depending on how good an actor he is).

I assume at least one or two jurors could be sympathetic to his youthful "mistake". On the other hand, the prosecutors would have a field day with the POS.

FatZilla said:

---

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.

---

My thoughts would be that this witness will not be in any trouble. Cops, prosecutors, and defense attorneys all know that witness statements can be wildly variable. It's well known that our brains will absolutely fill in gaps in memory to complete the story.

So the fact this witness gave an incorrect sworn statement to police does not necessarily mean that he was consciously lying. If I've read that transcript correctly, he admitted freely in open court that his original statement was incorrect and not supported by actual video.

Don't both sides typically want multiple corroborating witnesses because of the fallibility of human memory?

FriscoKid said:

---

So is that knife legal to carry in TX?

Yes

Would it surprise you if schools told the students they couldn't bring that knife to school events?

No, it would not

---

Well that backfired for the defense didn't it?

its called mudding the waters or creating doubt of the events. Again the defense in no way has to present the truth of anything that happened

aggiehawg said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Is there a chance this goes to the jury today?

---

Possible but not probable. If defense rests today, there are still closing arguments. There are the jury instructions to discuss between counsel and the judge.

OTOH, the state knows how many witnesses defense plans to call and they can pass on cross exam to speed things up. From what I have read, these defense witnesses are not hurting the state's case so little need for rigorous and lengthy cross.

---

I think they're going to be spending a significant amount of time during lunch doing the following:

-- Shook pleading with his client/his family to take a plea deal
-- defense offering some plea deal to the prosecution in the range of 10-ish years, with overtones that civil unrest won't occur

Now, perhaps some of this happened this weekend, but according to what I'm hearing this morning with this ridiculous parade of defense witnesses, who are -- in my mind -- simply pissing off the jury because it is just extending this trial out, I don't think Shook et.al. think(s) they have a reasonable chance at even a hung jury.

honest question, why would the prosecution offer anything around 10 years?

When we get these X posts with the Q&A testimony and cross, are those direct transcripts or are they based on quick notes and memory by the person doing the reporting? Am I under the correct impression that ZERO recording devices of any kind are allowed in the courtroom; not just those capable of video recording?

Do they step outside then to type this up? Or are we getting brief recesses?

AgBQ-00 said:

---

honest question, why would the prosecution offer anything around 10 years?

---

I thinks he's saying the defense will offer 10 years

you're right...I misread it. But that becomes why would the prosecution accept that?

You could be right. I'm sure the defense is watching the jury closely to see if anything is landing with them. I can't imagine much is resonating with them other than Anthony was a kid at the time.