- Judge stands by jury’s murder verdict and says they carefully considered the evidence.
- Judge faced criticism for banning cameras but prioritized due process over public access.
- Judge considers convicted teenager ‘nice young man’ facing consequences of tragic crime.
Carmelo Anthony’s the trial has sparked intense community backlash, and today we get more insight into the trial. Texas judge stands 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. “That’s what I was elected to do.”
According to USA todaydefended Collin County Judge John Roach Jr. the outcome of the closely watched trial in a post-verdict interview, saying he believes jurors reached the right 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 because of the racial dynamics involved, with Anthony being Black and Metcalf being White. Critics questioned the composition of the jury after reports that no black jurors served on the panel that ultimately convicted Anthony. However, Judge Roach dismissed concerns that the verdict was improper, saying jurors were selected under the law, listened to the testimony and returned a verdict based on the facts presented at trial.
“They were selected based on 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 to ensure a fair trial for both the prosecution and the defense, without satisfying the public’s curiosity. As a result, the only visual depictions of the case 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 any 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 sentence, Roach said his interactions with Anthony made him see the teenager as “a nice young man” now facing the consequences of a tragic crime. He acknowledged that some people disagreed with his decisions throughout the case, but maintained that he is comfortable with the decisions he made and believes the trial was conducted fairly. Anthony has since filed notice of his intent 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 do you say about this judge? Does he seem impartial to you?
Leave a Reply