Convicted Killer Demands Judge’s Removal After ‘Jury Got It Right’ Bombshell

Liberty Check

• Texas murderer seeks to overturn conviction by targeting judge who defended jury verdict
• Defense claims judge’s public comments about trial created appearance of bias
• Convicted killer sentenced to 35 years for stabbing 17-year-old at track meet

A Texas courtroom is set to decide Wednesday whether a judge who publicly defended a murder conviction should be removed from overseeing post-trial proceedings for convicted killer Karmelo Anthony. The hearing comes one day before a separate motion seeking to throw out Anthony’s murder conviction entirely.

Anthony’s new legal team, led by attorney Russell Wilson II, has demanded the removal of Judge John Roach from all remaining proceedings. Their argument centers on comments Roach made to reporters after Anthony was convicted in June of murdering 17-year-old Austin Metcalf.

The recusal hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. Wednesday before Judge Sid Harle. Anthony is expected to attend after a bench warrant was issued in the case, according to Collin County officials.

A jury convicted Anthony in June of stabbing Metcalf to death during an altercation at a Frisco track meet. The Collin County jury handed down a 35-year prison sentence.

Wilson’s legal team filed two motions on July 7 — one demanding Roach’s recusal and another seeking a complete do-over of the trial. The new-trial hearing is scheduled for Thursday morning.

The defense argues Roach cannot fairly rule on post-trial motions because of what he told reporters after the verdict was announced.

According to the filing, Roach told media the jury “got it right” and defended multiple trial rulings, including his restrictions on courtroom access and his dismissal of three Black prospective jurors during jury selection.

Anthony’s attorneys contend these public statements created the appearance that Roach had already made up his mind about the defense’s claims before even hearing them.

The filing does not challenge whether Anthony is guilty or innocent. Instead, it alleges constitutional and legal errors that the defense claims deprived him of a fair trial.

Among the complaints: Anthony’s trial was not sufficiently open to the public. Cameras were banned from the courtroom, and only 27 seats were made available for members of the public to observe the proceedings.

Anthony’s lawyers also accuse prosecutors of breaking an off-the-record agreement about character evidence and other alleged acts unrelated to the murder charge. They argue this dispute forced Anthony to decide whether to testify while risking the introduction of evidence they say could unfairly prejudice jurors against him.

The defense further challenges the jury instructions, arguing they limited jurors’ ability to fully consider Anthony’s claim of self-defense.

Under Texas procedure, Roach referred the recusal request to another judge for consideration.

The outcome of Wednesday’s hearing will determine who handles Anthony’s new-trial motion and other remaining post-conviction matters in the trial court.

The Constitution must be defended.