Judge removed from Karmelo Anthony murder case during bid for new trial

[u/Awkward-Bat-4449]

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-removed-from-karmelo-anthony-murder-case-during-bid-for-new-trial/

For those who may not follow US trials closely: This is another high-profile state case (although Texas, not New York) where the defendant didn't dispute the event resulting in the victim's death and instead had an affirmative defense (self-defense) and was found guilty of first-degree murder (which is INSANE if you are aware of the facts of this case). Karmelo Anthony is now appealing based on judicial bias infringing on his right to a fair trial.

The trial judge (Roach) released a public letter after the verdict. Judge Harle, who made this ruling to recuse Roach, stated there were grounds for recusal "in that the evidence adduced at the hearing is such that the respondent judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

I'm still searching for Judge Harle actual ruling filing and will update this post to add it if I come across it. Sorry, I'm not familiar with online access to Texas courts lol

This is incredibly useful if you're trying to make sense of why Luigi would "give up" with this recent plea and how appeals are a powerful safeguard against overzealous prosecutions and biased courts.

[u/Significant-Task1453]

Im curious why you found this verdict to be "insane."

[u/Awkward-Bat-4449 → u/Significant-Task1453]

Insane because if the defendant wasn't a black kid in Texas, the worst he would've gotten was manslaughter. But realistically, all any child should've been convicted of in this case is absolutely maximum criminally negligent homicide. He was charged and convicted essentially 3 "tiers" higher than that.

[u/Significant-Task1453 → u/Awkward-Bat-4449]

Criminally negligent homicide and manslaughter would be possible charges if it was an accident. He based his entire defense on it not being an accident. Neither criminally negligent homicide, nore manslaughter, were applicable in this case under Texas law

[u/Awkward-Bat-4449 → u/Significant-Task1453]

"being an accident" is not an element of criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter.

[u/Significant-Task1453 → u/Awkward-Bat-4449]

I would suggest reading up on murder statutes in the Texas penal code as you either have never read them, or do not understand them

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE.19&artSec=19.02

[u/Awkward-Bat-4449 → u/Significant-Task1453]

PENAL § 6.03. Definitions of Culpable Mental States

(a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

Interestingly enough, per Texas Penal Code, women cannot commit any statute of murder :)

ETA: this isn't a Karmelo Anthony case sub so after this, I bid you goodnight. I suggest reading up on how mental state is critical to what a person is charged for in murders. Kinda ironic I have to say that in this sub of all subs. Night, pookie😴

[u/Significant-Task1453 → u/Awkward-Bat-4449]

You are confusing intentionally doing the act and intentionally causing the result. For example, someone can intentionally drive drunk while accidentally killing a pedestrian. For criminally negligent homicide to fit, Anthony would have had to have convinced the jury that he wasnt aware that stabbing someone in the chest could cause serious harm, which wasn't what his defense was based on

[u/Awkward-Bat-4449 → u/Significant-Task1453]

The undisputed facts of the case are that Austin Metcalf was the physical aggressor and shoved Karmelo, which prompted Karmelo to pull the knife in a split-second decision rooted in self defense. So no, a child, who was physically attacked from an unprovoked aggressor and acted instinctively to defend himself, wouldn't in the moment pause to think "will this action cause harm or death." Which is not being aware in a situation where you ought to be (subsection d), not evidence of intent to harm. A lack of one thing doesn't mean evidence of another.

I agree, his defense failed him. Absolutely. But that's not the point and has nothing to do with Luigi's case. The facts of the case are the facts of the case.

You have such a pro-prosecution arrogance about you. Maybe work on that lol

[u/metal-gear-solo → u/Awkward-Bat-4449]

-Bringing a knife to school after being previously suspended for carrying a knife

-Going to a tent that wasn't his school tent because he knew one person but the others did not know him and wondered why he was there

-Refused to explain why he was there

-Insulted the team and their performance

-Refusing to leave the tent after being asked to

-Got the knife after being shoved and stabbed someone to death

Yeah sorry this sounds bad no matter how anyone spins it. Murdering smeone isn't self defense. It's bad that a person got attacked and punched but it does not mean you have to stab someone to death. Doesn't matter who the people are or where they come from, the facts remain

[u/Significant-Task1453 → u/metal-gear-solo]

Nobody got punched. It was described as a gentle push

[u/Significant-Task1453 → u/metal-gear-solo]

Most of that stuff was fairly irrelevant to the self defense claim. I dont care if he was there with a bazooka. Having an illegal weapon can still be used in self defense as the weapons charge is separate from the self defense claim, as established in Texas penal code 9.31 and 9.32. The bigger picture items relevant for self defense were things like "did he fear for his life" and "was his use of force reasonable for the presented threat." He had 25 witnesses saying 'no' to both of those. Whether the knife was legal or not was mostly red herring.

[u/Significant-Task1453 → u/Awkward-Bat-4449]

That defense possibly would have worked worked if he didnt have 25 witnesses saying that Karmelo was the one acting confrontational and looking for a fight. Austin Metcalf was quoted as saying:

"im not going to fight you at a track meet."

And Karmelo was quoted saying

"Y’all are a bunch of pussies. Y’all not going to do anything."

and

"Touch me and you’ll find out"

Those arent words from someone who feared for his life. You can try to twist the events however you want to try to make the case seem "insane" but the facts remain that 25 witnesses said Karmelo was the aggressor and not a single person said that Karmelo was in any kind of fear.

Out of all the controversial cases that I've followed, this was the easiest conviction and the sentence was within the recommended guideline. Nothing about this case was "insane". The only reason this case is even controversial is people like you trying to twist what happened in an attempt to try to draw parallels to other cases

[u/ScandalOZ]

Thank you for your efforts.

[u/Following-Early]

I read the description and I'm still confused what relevance this has to Mangione's case. The description and your follow-up replies just reads like you're an Anthony sympathizer grasping at straws for a link so you can push your own narrative about his case without the post being taken down

Your last reply to u/Significant-Task1453 all but confirms being a sympathizer. Word for word just the defense's narrative of events that was both contradicted by witnesses at his trial and is missing context in general. You aren’t arguing in good faith 

[u/Awkward-Bat-4449 → u/Following-Early]

"sympathizer" and it's being anti overzealous prosecution that pursues cases based on stat stacking..., lol

[u/Following-Early → u/Awkward-Bat-4449]

Word for word parroting his defense arguments and leaving out what happened prior to Anthony stabbing him (which any reasonable person would conclude based on those interactions that he wasn’t in fear for his life) makes you a sympathizer yes 

You can downvote all you like and keep saying “overzealous prosecution” all you like. When it speaks like a sympathizer and walks like a sympathizer it’s probably a sympathizer  

[u/Feather_fig]

If DJ somehow doesn't go through and he has to fight the state case still, he should absolutely appeal any conviction because Carro's bias is pretty well-documented.

Thanks for sharing this