- Convicted teen’s lawyers argue trial judge’s public comments show he was biased
- Defense also claims prosecutors broke ‘gentleman’s agreements’ on testimony
- A new judge will now decide if the original judge should be removed from the case
Karmelo Anthony’s legal team clearly isn’t ready to let this case get washed away by the ever-inflammatory news cycle. Just weeks after the Texas teen was convicted of murdering Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison, his new attorneys are trying to hit the reset button by asking for both a new trial and a new judge.
According to TMZ, Anthony’s new lawyer, Russell Wilson (not that Russell Wilson), is accusing trial Judge John Roach of violating legal protocol by making public comments after the verdict that allegedly showed he had already made up his mind about the fairness of the proceedings. The defense argues those remarks make it impossible for Roach to impartially rule on the post-trial motions now sitting before the court. Turns out, that was a good argument.
Via WFAA
“One of the legal requirements is that you have a judge that you believe can be fair and impartial for the issues that are going to come before the court. And, Judge Roach, we believe that based off of the interview that was done, that he could not be fair and impartial,” Wilson told WFAA. “And so our way to challenge that is to bring a motion to recuse. And so we’ll have that motion heard. And an independent judge will decide whether or not we can satisfy our legal standards.”
The defense is also taking issue with what they describe as broken “gentleman’s agreements” between prosecutors and defense attorneys over what testimony would and wouldn’t be introduced during trial. According to Anthony’s lawyers, those alleged changes influenced their client’s decision not to testify in his own defense, ultimately affecting the outcome of the case. Prosecutors, however, aren’t buying that argument. They insist the trial was conducted ethically and say the defense’s filings contain inaccurate descriptions of what actually happened in court.
“The defendant’s new lawyers have filed a motion containing several inaccurate characterizations of the trial proceedings. 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. We look forward to addressing these claims thoroughly in a Court of law in the coming weeks. The jury heard extensive evidence over the course of the trial and returned a unanimous verdict. We remain confident in that verdict and the fairness of the proceedings.”
Again, the defense has made sound and convincing legal arguments becuase WFAA reports that Judge Sid L. Harle has now been assigned to oversee the motion seeking Roach’s recusal, meaning a different judge will decide whether the original judge should be removed from handling the remaining proceedings. Harle will also be in position to determine whether Anthony’s request for a new trial moves forward.
For now, Anthony remains behind bars while his attorneys continue throwing an arsenal of challenges at his conviction. Whether these arguments amount to legitimate constitutional concerns or simply the standard post-conviction playbook is now in Judge Harle’s hands.
