- Judge stands by jury’s murder conviction, saying they carefully considered the evidence.
- Judge faced criticism for banning cameras, but prioritized fair trial over public access.
- Judge views convicted teen as ‘nice young man’ facing consequences of tragic crime.
Karmelo Anthony’s trial has sparked intense backlash from the commmunity and today we get more insight into the inner workings of the court proceedings. Texas judge is standing by both the jury’s verdict and his controversial courtroom decisions following the conviction of Karmelo Anthony in the fatal stabbing of fellow teenager Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet in Frisco, Texas.
“I’ll take it every time. It’s my job, it’s my duty,” Roach told the outlet. “It’s what I was elected to do.”
According to USA Today, Collin County Judge John Roach Jr. defended the outcome of the closely watched trial in a post-verdict interview, saying he believes jurors reached the correct decision after carefully considering the evidence presented in court. Anthony, now 19, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years in prison for the April 2025 stabbing death of Metcalf, a 17-year-old student-athlete. Jurors rejected the defense’s argument that Anthony acted in self-defense and also declined to find that he acted under “sudden passion,” a finding that could have significantly reduced his sentence.
The case attracted national attention due to the racial dynamics involved, with Anthony being Black and Metcalf being white. Critics questioned the makeup of the jury after reports that no Black jurors served on the panel that ultimately convicted Anthony. Judge Roach, however, dismissed concerns that the verdict was improper, saying the jurors were selected according to the law, listened to the testimony, and rendered a verdict based on the facts presented during the trial.
“They were picked based upon the law, they listened to the facts, it happened in this courtroom, and they got a verdict,” he said
Roach also addressed criticism of his decision to ban cameras from the courtroom, a move that frustrated some members of the media and the public. The judge explained that his primary responsibility was ensuring a fair trial for both the prosecution and the defense, not satisfying public curiosity. As a result, the only visual depictions of the proceedings came from courtroom sketch artists rather than video footage or photographs.
“It was an easy decision,” Roach told WFAA. “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 … I know I made people mad but I’m not here to make them happy, either.”
Despite defending the verdict, Roach said his interactions with Anthony led him to view the teen as “a nice young man” who now faces the consequences of a tragic crime. He acknowledged that some people disagreed with his rulings throughout the proceedings but maintained that he is comfortable with the decisions he made and believes the trial was conducted fairly. Anthony has since filed notice that he intends to appeal his conviction
“He seems like a nice young man who committed a crime and he understands today more than any day before the consequences of committing a crime like he did,” Roach said.
What say you about this judge? Does he seem unbiased to you?
