AT A GLANCE
- Karmelo Anthonyโs attorneys filed motions Tuesday seeking a new trial and Judge John Roach Jr.โs recusal
- The defense says attorneys were given only 10 minutes to counsel Anthony on whether to testify.
- Lawyers argue Roachโs 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.
Anthonyโs Legal Team Argues His Testimony Rights Were Violated and Roachโs Post-Trial Actions Raised Questions About the Courtโs Neutrality
Weeks after a new pro bono legal team joined Karmelo Anthonyโs case, his attorneys are challenging both the murder conviction and the judge who presided over the closely watched Texas trial.
Anthonyโs 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 Anthonyโs constitutional rights were violated during the trial and that Roachโs 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 Anthonyโs 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 teamโs most serious claims centers on Anthonyโs 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.
โWhen 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 counselโs request for additional time,โ the attorneys wrote.
The defense argues that the limited consultation period interfered with Anthonyโs ability to make an informed decision on one of the most consequential choices a criminal defendant can face.
Anthonyโs 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 Roachโs Post-Trial Interviews
The recusal motion also focuses heavily on Roachโs actions after the verdict.
Anthonyโs 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.
โA 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,โ 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 Anthonyโs conviction.
Those comments now sit at the center of the defense teamโs 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 courtโs responsibility as ensuring the โfair, orderly, and secure administration of justice.โ
Also Read: The Karmelo Anthony Case Wasnโt Supposed To Be About Race. Then Came โWatermelon Felonโ
Defense Questions Neutrality After Gag Order
Anthonyโs attorneys also point to what they describe as a contradiction between Roachโs 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 โsharpen rather than softens the appearance that the Court no longer sits as a neutral arbiter of the post-trial proceedings that remain before it.โ
The attorneys have also criticized the pace of the proceedings, including the courtโs decision to hear testimony on a Saturday. They argue that many defense witnesses were unavailable at that time.
The motion does not itself overturn Anthonyโs 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
Anthonyโs 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. Tuesdayโs 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, Anthonyโs self-defense claim and the judgeโs later release of portions of the trial evidence.
Now, Anthonyโs 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.
