New filings challenge Frisco murder verdict, seek judge's removal

Karmelo Anthony's defense team filed a motion for new trial and a separate motion to recuse the presiding judge, according to court documents reported July 7, 2026 The Guardian. Anthony, 19, was convicted by a Collin County jury of murder and sentenced to 35 years for the fatal stabbing of Austin Metcalf, 17, at a Frisco track meet in 2025. The filings mark the first substantive legal challenge to a verdict that drew national attention over its racial and procedural undertones.

The case — State of Texas v. Karmelo Sincere Anthony, Cause No. 296-83565-2025 — was tried in the 296th Judicial District Court of Collin County, a court that also handles family law, civil matters and child protective services cases under Judge John Roach Collin County. Roach is the target of the recusal motion, filed alongside the motion for new trial and dated July 6, 2026 according to the PDF filename stamp on the document published by WFAA. A legal-team-affiliated Instagram account confirmed the filings in a first-person post the same day the news broke, stating simply that both motions had been filed Instagram.

The defense's core argument centers on Anthony's decision not to testify. Attorneys contend prosecutors coerced that waiver by reneging on an unwritten, off-the-record agreement to keep extraneous-conduct evidence — material bearing on the character and reputations of both Anthony and Metcalf — out of trial The Guardian. Anthony had been advised by the court that testifying would almost certainly open the door to that same category of evidence, a warning the defense now says was the product of a broken bargain rather than a neutral evidentiary ruling. If prosecutors did indeed signal one posture privately and pursue another once trial began, that would be the kind of procedural irregularity appellate courts take seriously — though proving an unwritten agreement existed, absent a documented record, is a steep evidentiary climb for any defense team.

The filings raise two further claims. First, that jury instructions improperly directed jurors to disregard Anthony's self-defense theory, an error the defense argues was not harmless and independently warrants a retrial. Second, that restrictions on camera and livestream access during proceedings violated Anthony's constitutional right to a public trial. That claim will likely draw scrutiny to the county's own trial-management order — the "Amended Order Regulating Trial Proceedings, Media Access, Security" document Collin County District Courts issued governing the case Collin County. Media-access restrictions in high-profile trials are common and generally survive appellate challenge when tied to security or courtroom-management rationales, so this thread may prove the weakest of the four.

The Collin County district attorney's office did not respond to a request for comment on any of the defense's assertions The Guardian. Separately, NBC News reported that Anthony's attorneys have also filed a formal notice of appeal — a distinct procedural track from the new-trial motion, one that proceeds to the intermediate appellate court regardless of how the trial judge rules on recusal or retrial. Austin Metcalf, the victim, was a student at Memorial High School in the Frisco Independent School District, per the same report.

Anthony's representation changed hands ahead of this filing. Russell Wilson is among the attorneys now on the case, working pro bono according to Fox 4. That detail sits awkwardly beside reporting from the New York Post that Anthony received $625,000 following his conviction while separately claiming indigence in seeking counsel for his appeal. Neither the Guardian's account of the new filings nor the underlying court documents address that discrepancy directly, and it's unclear whether the pro bono arrangement was struck because of, or despite, Anthony's stated financial position.

Procedurally, the clock is tight. Fox 4 Dallas-Fort Worth reported the motion for new trial carries a docketed due date of July 9, 2026 — meaning Judge Roach, or whoever hears the recusal motion, faces a narrow window to act before the motion is deemed overruled by operation of law, a common outcome under Texas procedural rules when a trial court fails to rule within the statutory period.

None of this guarantees Anthony a new trial. Motions for recusal against sitting judges succeed infrequently, and appellate courts generally afford substantial deference to trial-level evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion. But the layered nature of these filings — recusal, new trial, and formal appeal running in parallel — suggests a defense team betting that at least one procedural thread will survive scrutiny even if the others don't. Collin County's own extensive public documentation of the case, from the amended trial-proceedings order to Judge Roach's own public thank-you letter following the verdict, indicates a court well aware that this case would be litigated as much in public record as in the courtroom itself Collin County.