Attorneys for Karmelo Anthony have negotiated a “gentleman’s agreement” with Texas prosecutors to prevent certain evidence from surfacing during his trial, as the teenager seeks to overturn his conviction for the murder of Austin Metcalf.
This arrangement was designed to focus the trial on “what happened under the tent,” specifically referencing the stabbing incident on April 2, 2025, at Kuykendall Stadium in Frisco, Texas, according to court documents obtained by the Daily Mail.
Described as a “gentleman’s agreement” in the court documents, the deal prohibited both defense and prosecution from discussing the personal and family backgrounds of Metcalf and Anthony.
The court documents, filed last month by Anthony’s new legal team, state, “In reliance upon the agreement, the defense also did not delve into the significant family violence Mr. Anthony had witnessed and endured in his home.”
At the time of the murder trial, Anthony’s lawyer, Mike Howard, agreed not to present evidence concerning the Metcalf twins’ character, reputation, or any related incidents involving violence, bullying, and racism, according to the documents.
Prosecutors, in return, agreed not to bring up Anthony’s school disciplinary record or his cellphone data as part of the agreement.
The deal further restricted the use of character witnesses for Anthony during the trial, as reported by the outlet.
When approached by the Mail, Austin Metcalf’s father, Jeff Metcalf, declined to comment, citing “ongoing court proceedings.”
Bill Wirskye, First Assistant at the Collin County District Attorney’s Office, told KXAS-TV last month, “I and the entire prosecution team conducted this trial ethically and in full compliance with the Court’s rulings and any agreements with defense counsel,” following the revelation of the “gentleman’s agreement.”
The agreement has come to light as Anthony’s civil rights attorneys, including veteran appellate attorney Russell Wilson and civil rights lawyer Brooke Cluse from Ben Crump Law, push for a new trial.
Anthony’s legal team is preparing for a recusal hearing on Wednesday in McKinney, Texas.
They aim to remove Judge John Roach from the case, alleging his public statements compromised judicial impartiality.
Judge Roach, who was elected, defended his decision to exclude cameras from the courtroom during remarks made two days after Anthony was sentenced.
“Yes, it was an easy decision. I’ll tell you why, my primary goal in every case is to make sure the defendant and the prosecution get a fair trial. Period,” Roach stated emphatically in an interview with WFAA on June 11.
“I have seen from other cases around the country where cameras in the courtroom changed the way that the judge acted, the lawyers act, [and] some of the witnesses acted.
“We were not going to have that here.”
Roach also affirmed that the jury reached the correct verdict because “they were picked based upon the law.”
“They listened to the facts, it happened in this courtroom, and they got a verdict,” added the judge, who is set to retire on Dec. 31.
If Judge Roach is recused, Anthony’s defense team plans to file a motion for a new trial, anticipated to occur the following day.
This decision will be made by August 24. Under Texas law, a court has 75 days from the date of sentencing to rule on a new trial motion, which is denied if the judge takes no action.
