Lawyer EXPLAINS Karmelo Anthony VERDICT

[00:00:00][music] >> Welcome to Savvy Sav's podcast. I'm your host Sabrina Salvati. My special guest today is a Harvard trained lawyer. His name is David Otunga. We have quite a bit to discuss. David, thank you so much for coming.

[00:00:20]>> Thank you so much for having me. I'm happy to be here.

[00:00:24]>> Well, we have quite a bit to to talk about because you know, ever since this Carmelo Anthony verdict, you know, a lot of people are asking questions. They're asking questions about self-defense.

[00:00:35]They're asking questions about uh manslaughter versus capital murder. And so I want to start with self-defense. So for those who are not aware, I've discussed this before on the show, but Carmelo Anthony uh was accused of capital murder uh from what I understand. So in the state of Texas, they don't have first-degree murder, but they have capital murder, which I think is essentially similar there. And he was found uh guilty, and he was sentenced to over uh 33 years.

[00:01:06]Carmelo Anthony said that he was defending himself. That was his statement that he gave to the police officer when he was arrested. And this involves the killing of Austin Metcalfe.

[00:01:19]So these were two teenage boys that were at a track meet, and things uh definitely terribly uh went wrong. And so I want to start with the self-defense.

[00:01:30]What what exactly does the law say about self-defense, especially in this type of incident?

[00:01:38]>> Sure. First, I I just want to make one clarification. I don't believe that he was charged with capital murder, cuz as capital murder would have uh required the death penalty. Or well, not required, but he would have been eligible for the death penalty. It wasn't the case here, as he was 17 when this did occur, even though he was tried as an adult. But in Texas they do murder a little bit differently. So, the first-degree murder doesn't require um intention or or planning rather, like no premeditation. It's just that somebody intended or knowingly committed the murder or or killed somebody else.

[00:02:13]So, it's it's a bit of a unique distinction.

[00:02:16]Um but for self-defense, now it comes down to the individual has to reasonably believe that their life was in danger or they were in danger of serious bodily harm to where the only way to protect themselves was to commit serious bodily harm or death on somebody else. Then it would be self-defense, but they have to reasonably believe that their life was in danger. And so that's a that's the difference.

[00:02:45]Um and it is was that belief reasonable in this case? And there's been a lot uh you know, a lot of questions about that in that Austin Metcalfe was not armed. And so, was Carmelo Anthony legally justified in using deadly force when the other individual was not using deadly force?

[00:03:10]>> This is why I wanted to talk to a lawyer about this um because again, I I think I saw a number of videos before the verdict happened that were on uh social media and there were different statements that were made by people about what the surveillance video actually showed. Some people said the video was kind of blurry, so they couldn't see everything. Some people said, "Well, I could see exactly what was on the video." And one of the claims that was made was that Austin and his brother tried to jump Carmelo.

[00:03:41]And I I don't know. Again, like they haven't released that video footage. I find that to be interesting. So, I haven't actually watched the video.

[00:03:52]If let's say that did happen, if someone is being jumped by multiple people, in the case of self-defense, would they be allowed to use deadly force in that case?

[00:04:06]>> That certainly factors in. And again, each case is different, but the fact that you have multiple people, you know, on one side and, you know, only one person on the other, that certainly raises the chance that there could be serious bodily harm. It makes it much more reasonable. Cuz that's all what this turns on is was it reasonable for him to use deadly force? And with two people, that makes it more likely, but still it's an uphill battle for the defense.

[00:04:36]I'll be honest with you, right off, like when I heard about this case and heard the facts on it. Now, I'm I'm a defense attorney.

[00:04:43]The facts aren't necessarily in Carmelo's favor here. In fact, they're not. So, this is a very uphill battle for the defense, and in particularly for proving that this was self-defense.

[00:04:54]Cuz again, the other two were unarmed, and and really, it's you know, it's being reported as one-on-one. However, like you said, we know from the statements, there actually probably was more people involved, and at least the twin brother, um Hunter Metcalf, was there with Austin. But yeah, that definitely factors in and can make it more reasonable. Does it make it reasonable for deadly force?

[00:05:20]That I'm not so sure of, but it it definitely puts it more towards that side of the scale as opposed to being one-on-one.

[00:05:30]>> Does the self-defense have to be proportionate in in that manner?

[00:05:35]>> Yes, and that's the other thing, too, is the force that you're that you meet it with has to be commensurate. Um so, proportional. So, if uh this would be a totally different story if Austin Metcalfe, the victim, if he had a weapon of some kind. Then, yes, this could be met with deadly force. Um, but the other problem is there isn't even really evidence that there were any punches or violence. Now, there it was reported that there was some kind of a touching. It's been It's been reported as a shove. Um, could I and some people said it was hard, some people said it wasn't even that hard of a shove. But just a shove, I don't I don't know if that, you know, could reasonably put somebody in fear of their life. Definitely not to retaliate with a deadly weapon. That's That's where the problem lies here.

[00:06:29]>> Yeah, see, I think it's important for people to know what the law says. Um, and and we've heard so many I've heard a lot of different stories about what happened that day. Uh, and the fact that they did not release the surveillance footage, I I can't say this is what I saw, so this is what I know. Like we we can't see the video footage. Now, I want to go back to this part about proportionate.

[00:06:51]>> Mhm.

[00:06:52]>> So, to make a comparison, let's go back to Daniel Penny and Jordan Neely.

[00:06:59]This was the incident that took place on New York City subway. Jordan Neely got onto the subway and apparently was making death threats. Apparently, he was talking to himself. Uh, and Jordan Neely has a history of mental illness, right?

[00:07:13]Now, the people on the train don't know that. But I've I've seen this happen.

[00:07:17]Like if you take a New York City subway, we've seen some things. So, I've seen this happen before. And Daniel Penny's defense was he felt he had to get up and stop Jordan Neely from doing what he said he wanted to do, to I guess kill everybody on that train.

[00:07:36]Jordan Neely didn't touch anyone.

[00:07:39]So, when in that case, how is it that Daniel Penny was found not guilty for killing Jordan Neely? For those who don't know, he basically put him like in a chokehold. For killing Jordan Neely, when Jordan Neely did not touch anyone, how how is that seen proportionate?

[00:07:59]>> Yeah, and that was a tough case, too.

[00:08:02]You know, I've got my opinions on that, as well. In that case, you're you're exactly right. Um is Jordan Neely hadn't touched anybody.

[00:08:12]However, the witnesses on the subway, they did say that they they felt they were in fear. They didn't know what was going to happen. Um Daniel Penny, I guess felt the same way. He did not use a weapon. So, it it was more hand-to-hand combat. However, he did use a a chokehold maneuver that ended up being lethal. To me, that seems like it fits more clearly into manslaughter, where he may not have intended to to kill Jordan Neely. However, his his conduct was reckless, because he should have known and was trained enough to do the maneuver. And me being a professional wrestler, I have unique experience with this, that I know those particular chokeholds can be very lethal, and if applied too long. Um but it seemed like it fit more clearly into manslaughter. Which if if I'm being honest with you, I kind of feel like that more fit this scenario with Carmelo Anthony. Is his conduct seemed like it was more reckless than intentionally trying to kill Austin McCap. And even by his statements after that, like asking if Austin was going to be okay. Just me hearing the facts, it seemed like it fit more neatly into manslaughter. And again, this knife, um it it it was a legal weapon, but you know, we we were just hearing how it was described as it was a knife. You initially think it's like a a kitchen knife or a hunting knife. It was a pocket knife that, you know, could be concealed in his hand.

[00:09:47]So, it wasn't a a giant knife. So, it's conceivable that Carmelo Anthony, you know, maybe did not know that this was going to cause death. You know, he might have thought this might have just incapacitated him or enough for him to run away because that's what the witnesses said also is, you know, once he reached out and defended himself with the knife, he threw it and ran. And I think that's another part here, too, is that he didn't stab him more than once.

[00:10:15]It it seemed kind of This is the part that kind of fit with you know, maybe self-defense is that he just reached out one time and struck and then ran away.

[00:10:26]However, it was with lethal force.

[00:10:29]Um so, again, this is why I kind of feel like it it could be termed as as reckless or you should have known better, but more manslaughter than actual murder.

[00:10:40]>> So, why do you feel he was charged with um with murder [clears throat] and not manslaughter?

[00:10:48]>> Um well, they're always going to go for the top charge. And and and the elements I mean, they they could be debated here and he ended up getting convicted of murder.

[00:10:59]Um and that's what the the jury they felt that this was intentional and knowing And that's the other part of it, though, is there was an intentional act.

[00:11:11]And so, and he knowingly did this. He he admitted so right after the fact with the security guard or the police officer, whoever it was, they said, "I'm with the alleged suspect." And he said, "Not alleged. I did it." And so, it could have been even something as simple as that statement that stuck in jurors' minds cuz when you go back and you read the jury instructions, it's a pretty narrow definition of murder. You know, either knowingly and intentionally causing the death of another. So, it it does fit into that and that was the first jury instruction listed.

[00:11:48]>> That's interesting. I want to come back to the jury in just a second, but I want to go back to the defense for a minute.

[00:11:55]The defense to me, one of the things that I thought was odd is that it seemed like the one witness that they had testified and said that Carmelo was the one who actually initiated the incident.

[00:12:10]First of all, why do you believe the defense only had this one witness from what I read?

[00:12:16]And how how did they think that that would actually help Carmelo to to have this person? It seemed very weird to me and I wonder, you know, were they actually trying to win in in in that regard? What do you think their strategy was?

[00:12:35]>> You know, >> [laughter] >> I wondered the same thing. I'll be honest, I assumed the defense attorney, you know, had good intentions, but his methods would have been very different from my own.

[00:12:48]I think there there must be a lot that we're unaware of because I was very very confused by the whole defensive strategy. Yes, and the witnesses called or the lack of witnesses thereof because I didn't really feel like they put forth the best case possible and I was as it was happening in real time, I was trying to give them a pass in that I assumed that Carmelo Anthony was going to take the stand and that was going to clear everything up.

[00:13:19]But that did not happen, which really left me befuddled because in a case like this, okay, so normally it's it's common practice where an attorney doesn't want their client if if they're uh you know, being tried for murder, they don't necessarily want them to take the stand because it could open them up to cross-examination and having them being painted in a very bad light. It's dangerous. You don't know how your your client is going to perform on the stand.

[00:13:47]Except if it's self-defense, this is an affirmative defense in some states. So like you need your client to testify to why they reasonably felt they were in fear for their life cuz that's that's all this turns on. He admitted to the killing. We know that. So this would be murder except if it was legally justified. The only way to prove it's legally justified is you have to show that you had a reasonable belief that it was it was reasonable that your life was in danger.

[00:14:21]That's what the jury wants to hear. So the only person who can say that or the best person to say that is the defendant him or herself. You can have other witnesses testify if you have strong witnesses that testified this was not the case but they testified that you know, they were ganging up on him, you know, they're much bigger than Carmelo.

[00:14:40]It was him against you know, a group of people um what the what it felt like there he he was nervous, he was scared but nobody testified to that. We didn't hear anything like that. So I I cannot figure out why they didn't have him take the stand because another big question, I know I had it. I'm sure the jury had it too. If it was me, why did he have a knife with him at a track meet in the first place? This is a school track meet. I mean, it's not illegal to carry a knife but why did he have a knife at a track meet? And that could have been explained in a number of ways. He It could be to clean the the dirt out of his cleats or something. Maybe that's something that he just happened to have in his bag. But I don't know. That's speculation. Nobody said this. We didn't hear this from him. And I think that was I I think that played more of a part than people realize and and with the jury is juries tend to want to hear from the defendant especially if it's self-defense because it's much easier for them to understand and put themselves in his shoes if he gets up there and testifies to how scared he was, what his thought process was. That That's a main part. You know, if he felt it like he for him to explain in his own words he thought this was the only way out or he wasn't intending to kill him.

[00:15:59]Maybe he just intended to cut him. It went deeper than he thought. I've I've also heard Now th- these are are rumors but that you know, people were saying and again this is online. You take this with a grain of salt. But that Austin, you know, um and let's say he was coming at him with such force that he kind of drove himself into the knife. I I don't know that to be true or not. But if if if that did indeed happen we would have had to hear that from Carmelo. That could have been powerful. But we didn't we didn't hear anything like that. So the fact that he didn't testify and with the evidence that was put forth and what we did hear from the witnesses I was not surprised by the verdict. I was not surprised at all. I would have been surprised um if it was the other way. Like if he wasn't convicted because I I frankly don't think that they proved their case just off of the evidence. I I don't think they did.

[00:16:53]The defense team.

[00:16:54]>> Yeah.

[00:16:55]>> Yeah, and this is the thing I think um some people may not realize that the people that you need to prove in that room you have to prove your case to the jury, right? And so your hands like the fate of your future lies in the hands of that jury.

[00:17:14]And I do think it's strange. It was reported that Carmelo Anthony was going to testify. And then they took like a recess, they came back and they said, "Nope.

[00:17:25]Nope, that's not going to happen." It makes me believe that maybe the defense they knew something else or they felt some kind of way. We don't know. We We don't know. And I feel like they haven't answered that question either. So, Carmelo never took the stand and there are a number of questions like to your point. Nobody knows why he brought the knife. Like we can speculate, but we don't know for sure because he didn't get to respond about that. We don't know like what exactly happened between him and Austin unless like I wasn't in that courtroom. I didn't see the video. And then some people who saw the video said it was blurry. So, it's just I I I don't know and it's just to me it seemed reckless that the defense decided to back away from that.

[00:18:14]So, now you had no one that could really testify to the self-defense claim.

[00:18:21]And that brings me to the jury.

[00:18:24]I personally like going into this case, I didn't think there was any chance that Carmelo Anthony was going to be found not guilty.

[00:18:33]That was before the jury was announced.

[00:18:36]Do you believe that things could have been different if there would have been black jurors on that jury? Because for those who don't know, there were no black jurors on the jury. Um it wasn't an all white jury, but there were no black jurors on the jury. And so, do you think it would have been different that he would have been found not guilty if there were black jury members?

[00:19:00]>> I don't know if the outcome would have been different, but it definitely may have helped because what's not being what wasn't said in court, but what is clearly being talked about online is the racial component to this. Now, just from hearing the facts, I haven't heard any evidence that this, you know, this altercation was racially motivated one way or the other. Didn't didn't hear anything about that. However, this is this is Texas. Race is a very real thing.

[00:19:35]And it would have helped if there were some black jurors who could put themselves in Carmelo's shoes or, you know, from from that town, that county, and they could have felt, oh no, this there may have been some racial motivation, whatever there was. But being being black there, you you can read the subtext sometimes or or gain an understanding from situations that don't come across in court transcripts or as being reported, but actually have a feeling there. So, I feel like and maybe, you know, they there had been situations in the past. I don't know. I don't know what the history of that that town is. Had there been other racially motivated, you know, instances like this? I don't know. But, I think that it it may have helped just for, you know, to have some black jurors who could relate and maybe, you know, explain certain things in the jury room. So, I don't think it would have hurt. Um I think it only could have helped. Would he have been found not guilty?

[00:20:37]Now, that that I don't know. Cuz in in in going what we said, I want to make sure I'm clear where I said, um the defense, I don't think they proved their case. The defense doesn't have to prove a case.

[00:20:49]The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Except for when it's self-defense, which in most states isn't affirmative defense, you need to put forth evidence to show that your client reasonably was in fear for their life. And the fact that he did not take the stand, they're they didn't offer anything that could help their position. So, if the only evidence supported was the prosecution, that's the only evidence that was brought out in showing that, you know, this was unreasonable and that he did intentionally commit this murder, this killing, well, murder is satisfied off of that. And so, if you don't offer anything to combat that, really what are you left, you know, with the jury to do? What are they supposed to do? They only got one side of this.

[00:21:39]And I the same thing I that you touched on, I think something happened um behind closed doors because there was this strange 3-hour break. I assumed they were preparing Carmelo to take the stand. I don't know why he didn't take the stand. I I don't know. Um and especially the way the trial was going, there would have had to be extra circumstances, you know, I don't know, it maybe maybe my client was was too nervous or something like this, but this would have been the time for him to take the stand. You you have nothing to lose at at this point. Um I mean, cuz we see the way it turned out. But, back to the the jury questions, I do think some black jurors, you know, could have helped. Would he have been found not guilty?

[00:22:27]I think that's probably unlikely, but maybe maybe manslaughter. Um and and maybe it could have helped in uh the sentencing.

[00:22:37]>> The reason why I ask is because, you know, there was a a similar case in Texas. It was the Kason Allison case. Uh he was also a teenager. A Kason Allison stabbed another student. Now, in this case, it was clear that it was intentional. Uh Kason said he was going to do this. Uh so, he stabbed another student, they got into a fight, stabbed another student.

[00:22:59]Uh that student was Latino. That happened before the Carmelo Anthony incident. And I find it very interesting that the Kason Ellison case did not receive the national attention that the Carmelo Anthony one did. And so sometimes I wonder, you know, with the media, what is the goal here? Why didn't the Kason Ellison Kason Ellison is was white for those who don't know.

[00:23:27]Uh the student that he stabbed was Latino. Why didn't the media, you know, make that case national news? And it seems to me that there is that racial motivation as well within the media, right? Because with Carmelo Anthony, it's a black kid and a white kid. With Kason Ellison, it's a white kid and a Latino kid.

[00:23:50]Um and the white kid was the one who stabbed the other students. And even Kason Ellison did not receive 33 years, and he did say he was going to do it. So that was definitely intentional. He received 10 years.

[00:24:06]>> Wow.

[00:24:07]>> From from what I read. So I I have to ask if Carmelo were white, would we even know about this case? And so I wonder sometimes the role that the media plays um trying to decide which cases they're going to make national news and which ones they're not.

[00:24:26]>> I think that's a valid question. And I I think you're absolutely right because it's always interesting which cases receive the national attention and which ones do not. And, you know, controversy sells, and you know, stories like this sell. And I think that's part of it is why this is blown up on social media as well is it's such a polarizing case. And I think because you have a black defendant and a white victim, I think that it stirs emotions and news channels, they want to report on this because it's going to get views. It's going to get clicks. Um, but you're absolutely right. And and you know, what does that say about mainstream media and how they choose which cases to highlight? And I'll give you I'll give you one further like, I wonder if this would have received mainstream attention if the races were reversed. And it probably would have. But if if Austin was black and Carmelo was was white, I wonder if the outcome would have been different.

[00:25:36]>> That's a good question.

[00:25:38]Um, I I know a little bit about Texas and one of them is that, you know, they they have capital punishment. And I didn't know what sentence was going to be thrown Carmelo's way. Um, but again, I I didn't think that he would be found not guilty.

[00:25:55]I want to ask your question about the 33 years. Uh, do you think that is fair for what it seems like to me was not an intentional act. Um, again, I would have called this manslaughter. Do you feel that 33 years is fair?

[00:26:12]>> Personally, um I feel like it's it's a bit excessive.

[00:26:17]And I believe he has to serve 17 and a half years before he's even eligible for parole, which coincidentally is about the age that McCaff was. I don't know if that factored into it. Um, the jury, you know, basically trading one life for another.

[00:26:33]Um, Carmelo Anthony, you know, from from what I've heard, aside from this was a good kid, had a high GPA, had not been in any trouble, was well-liked, and did not have a criminal record. So, this clearly was, you know, a grave mistake that he made.

[00:26:50]Um, I I think that I think the punishment was a little bit stiffer than I thought it was going to be, but then again, he was found guilty of murder. Like he I again, I thought that he should have been found guilty or might have been found guilty of manslaughter. I thought that fit better and that would have carried a much lower penalty, but the fact that they found him guilty for murder, yeah, this I mean, I can see them going this high.

[00:27:21]>> Yeah, that makes sense. And I I think that's one of those things that again, this is why I wanted to talk to you about what does the law say? Because it's I think, you know, there's a lot of emotions about this and people people have feelings about what should have happened and how things should have gone and then there's the law, right?

[00:27:39]And and then we look at other instances like people gave references to um George George Zimmerman. Like people brought that up. People brought up, but I think the best example to point to is the case in Ellison case because it's more closely aligned uh with this one, but I think a lot of this shows is that once again, the justice system it has its flaws and we [clears throat] we know and I have always said this too, like the whole self-defense thing, I never really felt like that it really applied to black people. Like that's just from my experience and so it should apply to everybody, but I feel like when it comes to the justice system, we know this is a perfect example with Carmelo, no record, no no record at all and then you see the punishment that's that's given to him. Again, he was convicted of murder and that's something important to reiterate so people understand why he got the sentence that he did, but I think that it's it's interesting how you can have like no record and you did not you know, premeditate to kill somebody.

[00:28:54]Um but this is this is what happens. And so, I think there's something to be said about that. The parents of Carmelo Anthony said on the news recently that they think they may have made a mistake with the current attorney that they selected for Carmelo.

[00:29:13]What is your opinion about that?

[00:29:15]>> Um I mean it's it's hard to say because there's limited information that we got from this case and again it wasn't televised.

[00:29:25]So, we're having to read things through transcripts and then also >> [snorts] >> it's after the fact. It's easy to to point blame, you know, Monday morning Monday morning quarterbacking.

[00:29:35]Um but there's things I would have done differently for sure. Um cuz I know people were talking about potential appeals and one of the grounds people raising was potentially an ineffective assistance of counsel. But I I don't know if they have that here. Like cuz I actually read through the jury instructions and I was surprised there was a number of things, you know, in there that favored the defense and I wasn't quite sure that they would be in there. So, I think the attorney, you know, did his or her best job. However, I I they didn't win the case. There were things that didn't happen and we don't know why. You know, you can't you cannot compel your client to take the stand.

[00:30:20]It's Carmelo's right not to take the stand. So, that shouldn't be held against the attorney. We don't know what happened there. Um I would have liked to see more witnesses, but we maybe there weren't witnesses that favored Carmelo.

[00:30:34]I I don't know. I'm assuming that the attorney did the best with whatever he or she had. But again, the facts they weren't great in this case. They They really weren't.

[00:30:46]Um So, I don't but I don't know. There There may be grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel if I'm assuming the parents clearly know things that we don't. I I'd be curious to hear, you know, what those grounds are, why they felt that, you know, the attorney didn't serve them well, and and what specifics they could get into.

[00:31:04]>> You mentioned appeal. One of the things that people have suggested is that Carmelo could have an appeal because of the jury selection. That they could say the jury, there were no member of his of his peers on the jury.

[00:31:19]How often does that actually happen where you are granted an appeal because of the jury selection?

[00:31:25]>> It can happen. And in this case, they're talking about uh a Batson challenge, where they're alleging that the prosecution struck all the black jurors um because they didn't want black jurors on the case who would have been sympathetic to Carmelo. However, this is going to be extremely difficult to prove. Because what's going to happen is the prosecution has to show cause for why they struck those black jurors. And if they have an independent reason other than race, the judge will likely uphold it. And that that's what happened because the defense already raised this during voir dire. But, however, I think part of the reason was to preserve it for appeal.

[00:32:05]And as I understand it, the prosecution, they gave the reasoning that the three black jurors they struck was due to the fact that they were educators.

[00:32:15]Now, what would help the case, what would help the defense on appeal, is if they're able to do a comparative analysis and if you find other educators on the jury who are who were white or who were not black. And so, then, that doesn't quite line up. As I understand it, I believe there was at least one juror who was an educator but had what was not an educator at the time of the trial. I don't know if the individual was retired or was but was a former educator. So, I think that distinction is a little bit different. However, that's something they could look into, but uh from what I see, I think that's that's going to be a very uphill battle. Um and I I don't know the the likelihood of success on that one. Does doesn't look very high.

[00:33:02]>> This is very uh good to know. Uh thank you, David. Thank you so much um cuz like I said, I've been waiting to cover this because I wanted to talk to a lawyer about this cuz I've heard so many different things uh about this case and I was really curious like where does the law stand uh when it comes to self-defense and and so much more and this has been very very enlightening.

[00:33:25]So, thank you so much and where can people follow your work?

[00:33:29]>> They can find me. I'm on Instagram social media at David Otunga. You can go to my YouTube channel. Just go to davidotunga.com.

[00:33:37]It'll take you right there. And also davidotungalawyer.

[00:33:41]>> Thank you, David.

[00:33:43]>> Thank you.

[00:33:44]>> Hey guys, this was a Savvy clip. If you like what you saw, hit that like button and subscribe.