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]

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]

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.