AT A GLANCE
- Karmelo Anthony’s attorneys filed motions Tuesday seeking a new trial and Judge John Roach Jr.’s recusal
- The defense says attorneys were given only 10 minutes to counsel Anthony on whether to testify.
- Lawyers argue Roach’s post-trial interviews and public statements created questions about judicial neutrality.
- Anthony was convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years in prison on June 9.
- His new pro bono legal team includes prominent Texas attorneys and civil rights lawyers.
Anthony’s Legal Team Argues His Testimony Rights Were Violated and Roach’s Post-Trial Actions Raised Questions About the Court’s Neutrality
Weeks after a new pro bono legal team joined Karmelo Anthony’s case, his attorneys are challenging both the murder conviction and the judge who presided over the closely watched Texas trial.
Anthony’s legal team filed two major motions Tuesday: one seeking a new trial and another asking that Judge John Roach Jr. be removed from all remaining post-trial proceedings. The filings argue that Anthony’s constitutional rights were violated during the trial and that Roach’s public comments after the verdict created at least the appearance that he can no longer serve as a neutral decision-maker.
The legal challenge marks a significant new phase in a case that drew national attention over Anthony’s self-defense claim, the racial makeup of the jury and the handling of a trial that ended with the 19-year-old receiving a 35-year prison sentence.
Defense Says Anthony Was Rushed on Whether to Testify
One of the defense team’s most serious claims centers on Anthony’s decision not to take the witness stand.
According to the filing, the court gave defense attorneys only 10 minutes to advise the then-19-year-old on whether he should waive his Fifth Amendment privilege and testify in his own defense. The attorneys say a request for additional time was denied.
“When the moment came for the Defendant to make the most consequential decision of the trial, whether to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege and testify, the Court allotted the defense ten minutes to counsel a nineteen-year-old through it and denied counsel’s request for additional time,” the attorneys wrote.
The defense argues that the limited consultation period interfered with Anthony’s ability to make an informed decision on one of the most consequential choices a criminal defendant can face.
Anthony’s decision not to testify became particularly important because his attorneys argued throughout the case that he acted in self-defense during the April 2025 confrontation that ended with the fatal stabbing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a Frisco track meet.
A Collin County jury rejected that defense, convicted Anthony of murder and sentenced him to 35 years in prison on June 9. Independent reporting from KERA confirms that the new defense team filed both the new-trial and recusal motions Tuesday.
Attorneys Point to Roach’s Post-Trial Interviews
The recusal motion also focuses heavily on Roach’s actions after the verdict.
Anthony’s attorneys argue that Roach participated in a local television interview and publicly expressed views about the fairness of the proceedings and decisions he made from the bench while he still retained authority over post-trial matters.
“A judge who publicly memorializes the trial as concluded, and publicly pronounces the process fair, while still holding the authority to grant a new trial, signals to the reasonable observer that he regards the matter as closed,” the attorneys wrote.
Following the trial, Roach publicly defended his handling of the case, including his decision to prohibit cameras from the courtroom. In an interview with WFAA, he said his primary goal was ensuring both sides received a fair trial and defended the jury process that produced Anthony’s conviction.
Those comments now sit at the center of the defense team’s argument that a different judge should decide the remaining legal challenges.
Roach also published a June 17 letter through Collin County thanking agencies and individuals involved in the trial and describing the court’s responsibility as ensuring the “fair, orderly, and secure administration of justice.”
Also Read: The Karmelo Anthony Case Wasn’t Supposed To Be About Race. Then Came ‘Watermelon Felon’
Defense Questions Neutrality After Gag Order
Anthony’s attorneys also point to what they describe as a contradiction between Roach’s public statements and restrictions imposed on others during the case.
Roach issued a gag order limiting commentary by trial participants. The new defense team argues that his own Facebook writings and post-trial interviews raise concerns under Texas judicial conduct standards governing impartiality and the appearance of objectivity.
According to the motion, those actions “sharpen rather than softens the appearance that the Court no longer sits as a neutral arbiter of the post-trial proceedings that remain before it.”
The attorneys have also criticized the pace of the proceedings, including the court’s decision to hear testimony on a Saturday. They argue that many defense witnesses were unavailable at that time.
The motion does not itself overturn Anthony’s conviction or remove Roach from the case. Instead, the defense is asking for the recusal question and broader constitutional challenges to be considered through the post-trial process.
New Legal Team Escalates Fight Over Conviction
Anthony’s new legal team was assembled in late June after his conviction and sentencing.
The group includes Russell Wilson II of the Law Office of Russell Wilson II in Dallas; Gary Bledsoe of the Bledsoe Law Firm PLLC and president of the Texas NAACP; Michael L. Ware of the Law Office of Michael Ware; Brooke Cluse of Ben Crump Law; Sean Daredia of Daredia Law Firm; and Justin A. Moore of Stafford Moore PLLC.
Their involvement signaled that the legal fight would continue beyond the initial notice of appeal. Tuesday’s filings now provide the clearest indication yet of how the new team intends to challenge both the conviction and the proceedings that produced it.
The case has remained under intense scrutiny since the trial, including questions surrounding an all-non-Black jury, courtroom access, Anthony’s self-defense claim and the judge’s later release of portions of the trial evidence.
Now, Anthony’s attorneys are asking the courts to examine not only what happened before the jury reached its verdict, but whether the judge who presided over the trial should have any role in deciding what happens next.
