Latest / The Breakfast Club / Karmelo Anthony: GUILTY. Attorney David Otunga Breaks Down the Verdict

Transcript

Karmelo Anthony: GUILTY. Attorney David Otunga Breaks Down the Verdict · The Breakfast Club

• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Well, the verdict is in. Carmelo Anthony has been found
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: guilty of murder. A Calling County jury took less than
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: three hours, and now that same jury is deciding how
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: many years he'll spend behind bars. This case has had
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: the whole country divided over race, over self defense, and
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: over what really happened under that tent. Joining us here
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: on front page to help us break it down and
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: understand what happened in that courtroom is attorney David O'toga.
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: He's a Harvard law graduate and legal analysis and David,
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: it's good to see you. Thank you for joining us today.
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: Thank you for having me, me me, I appreciate it absolutely.
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: So let's just jump right in. There's so much information here.
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: A jury, they deliberated less than three hours and they
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: came back with a guilty verdict. What is this deliberation
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: that fast usually tell us, Well.
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: They pretty much had their minds made up. For me,
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: I think that it came down to Carmelo Anthony not
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: taking the stand because this is a self defense case,
• 1:08
  Speaker 2: and a lot of times, just you know, in my
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: experience as being a lawyer, a lot of times the
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: defendant needs to take the stand. It is their right
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: not to, but jurors often want to hear from the
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: defendant in his or her own words, what happened. And
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: there was a long delay yesterday, some three hours, and
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: they thought that the defense was, you know, preparing Carmelo
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: Anthony to take the stand, and he ended up not
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: doing that and they rested their case, which was surprising
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: to me because just in following this, I'm not sure
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: that they raised enough reasonable doubt about this being self defense.
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: I wasn't convinced, like I felt, Carmelo needed to take
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: the stand, and I think that probably played a large
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: part in this, where the jury kind of already had
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: their mind made up, and in not hearing from him,
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: it made it simpler, it kind of depersonalized it. Just
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: in my experience, and of course I'm just speculating, but
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: this is something that I kind of feel probably played
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: into this.
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: And to that point, the jury, though they had three
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: options right not guilty, manslaughter was one of them, or
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: murdered or what does it mean that they skip right
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: past manslaughter?
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: In Texas, you just have to prove that the killing
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: was intentional, or that Carmelo Anthony knowingly killed Austin metcalf
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: and I mean that was pretty straightforward. So then once
• 2:34
  Speaker 2: they had to determine whether or not the self defense
• 2:37
  Speaker 2: was reasonable, I think that was straightforward. However, I still
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: feel like manslaughter fit more perfectly just off of what
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: I've heard, And you know, you have to take into
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: account these were teenagers, you know, seventeen years old. Carmelo
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: Anthony did not have a criminal record, was a three
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: point eight GPA like for and I believe he was
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: captain of the Fall team track Star like he was
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: a good kid up until this point. So it kind
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: of seemed like it was more reckless. And because even
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: his statements directly after the fact, this was a pocket knife,
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: which it's being reported a three inch blade, I think
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: the whole thing was five inches, and it was just
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: one one wound. He just reached out and stabbed one time,
• 3:25
  Speaker 2: so it wasn't like he stabbed over and over and
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: over and then you know, fled and even then you know,
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: saying is Austin going to be okay? To me, that
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: doesn't sound like the words of the intent of somebody
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: knowingly trying to kill somebody else. But it seemed to
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: fit more the narrative of what potentially happened where he
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: might have been defending himself. Was it reckless, Yes, and
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: it was with a knife, and it did end up,
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: you know, causing Austin Metcalf to lose his life. But
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: to me, it just didn't seem like that was the
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: intention of Carmelo Anthony.
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: You know, we're just learning new information out of that
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: courtroom where the judge has now said they can consider
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: something called sudden passion during sentencing. What does that mean
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: if they can consider sudden passion and how would that
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: impact the sentencing?
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: So sudden passion within Texas, now this is something that
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: allows the defendant already convicted of murder, so once they're
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: already convicted, to prove that he acted under the immediate
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: influence of sudden passion, or that sudden passion arose from
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: adequate cause, so kind of like heat of passion, which
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: people have heard of. But the burden is on the
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: defendant in this case to prove by a preponderance of
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: the evidence, which is much less than beyond all reasonable doubt.
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: A preponderance is more likely than not so fifty one percent.
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: But what that would do is essentially move this from
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: first degree sentencing to a second degree sentencing felony. So basically,
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: right now, with first degree Carmelo Anthony is facing five
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: to ninety nine years to life, but if sudden passion
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: comes in, this could be reduced to two to twenty years.
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: To be honest, I don't know how much success this
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: is going to have with this jury, you know, just
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: in looking at I mean the jury, they went for
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: the top charge. They didn't seem to have any sympathy.
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: They did not choose manslaughter, and so this is got
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: to remember this is the same jury who will now
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: be deciding this. And the difference is with self defense,
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: it was basically the defendant saying that the killing was justified.
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: But with sudden passion, the defendant is not saying I
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: was justified, but saying I was emotionally overwhelmed by the situation.
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: So that's okay, it's more likely that they could, you know,
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: decide for that. However, it's still going to be an
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: uphill battle from here, and yes, absolutely the prosecution is
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: going to fight this very hard.
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: And you know, you brought up jurors and that was
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: like one of the things I really wanted to speak
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: with you about because there were no black jurors seated
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: in this case. We know Carmelo Anthony is a black man,
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: and when we hear the phrase jury of your peers,
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: we automatically think that that means that there should be
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: someone who looks like us on the jury. But is
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: that the case and did this jury meet the standard?
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: That's not always the case, and in this case this
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: jury that were no black jurors, and even the defense
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: raised what's called a bats and challenge. They raised this,
• 6:32
  Speaker 2: but the prosecution was able to get around this by
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: saying that they struck the last three black jurors for
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: other cause that they were educators, which to me doesn't
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: really necessarily make sense because you would think those are
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: jurors that you would want because this happened at a school.
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: So is this a juror a jury of his peers?
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: You could look at it both ways. Not exactly, it's
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: not exactly. And I do think that played a major
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: part here because this case didn't seem to be about
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: race on its face. However, the fact that there were
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: no cameras allowed in kind of just let people blow
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: everything up on social media and they very much made
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: this about race. Like if you look outside the courthouse.
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: It's very much divided. This is an extremely polarizing case
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: and race is very very much involved here. So I
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: think it the outcome might have been different had there
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: been some black jurors.
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: Yes, I agree with you. But now that we know
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: there were no black jurors, could this be used as
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: an appeal or part of the appeal process later on?
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, and I think that's probably what will happen.
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: I think that's probably one avenue. And I also think
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: that's part of the reason why the defense raised this
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: in the first place, raised the bats and challenges to
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: preserve it for appeal.
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: And you know, I want to ask you about Austin's brother,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: brother Hunter, because he was in that courtroom and he
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: watched his brother get stabbed. He actually was the one
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: who held him when he died, but he was not
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: called to testify. And from a legal strategy, why would
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: the prosecution leave someone like that off the stand?
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: So I've wondered about this too, and I have my
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: thoughts on this is that, Yes, you would think he
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: would have been the most powerful witness for the prosecution
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: to call. So the fact that they did not call
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: him tells me there's something that they were worried about
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: the defense getting from him or twisting in a way.
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: So I wonder if maybe he was more aggressive than
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: his brother than Austin. I don't know, because it was reported,
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: you know, certain witnesses said that the two of them
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: were there together. I don't know, and who knows what
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: the defense could have elicited on cross examination, but that
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: could have harmed the prosecution's case. So's that's what I
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: think would be the only reason to not call him.
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: But then again, I mean, the prosecution's case was really
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: strong without him. I mean they you know, they eventually
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: won their side anyway without using him. But it does
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: make me wonder why they didn't call him. And what
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: we're missing because a lot of things people don't realize
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: is in a trial, we're only allowed the jury is
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: only allowed to consider the evidence that's brought in, But
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: that doesn't mean that's all of the evidence. There's a
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: lot of things that happened that the lawyers strategically don't
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: allow in or allow the jury to hear, and that
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: could This is a perfect example of that. I mean,
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: if if Hunter, if there was something that could have
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: hurt their case, it was up to the prosecution to say, well,
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: you know what, our case is strong even without this,
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: We don't necessarily need a slam dunk. We think we
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: have enough to win. And so that would be my
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: reasoning as to why they didn't call him. But I mean,
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: who knows.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: You know, earlier you brought up that Carmelo didn't take
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: the stand. The defense they only called six witnesses, and
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: as a defense attorney, walk us through that decision to
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: only call six witnesses and why maybe you wouldn't put
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: your client on the stand. When is when do you
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: keep them on? When do you take them all?
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: This is a tough one because I really believe that
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: the reason they called so a few witnesses was I
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: think their strategy was initially they were going to have
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: Carmelo take the stand. I mean, as a defense attorney,
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: if you're, you know, using self defense, you need somebody
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: to explain why he was legally justified, because the whole
• 10:40
  Speaker 2: point of it is it turns on that he was
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: in fear of imminent bodily harm or death, and that's
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: the person that needs to explain how he felt and
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: to put the jurors in his shoes so they could
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: reasonably see, okay, this is how that happened. To not
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: have that the eyewitnesses basically they're looking at something that
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: they observed and they can attribute to you know, how
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: they might have felt. But it seems that Carmelo Anthony
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: was you know, the only person who you know, just
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: from what we're hearing, who reasonably believed that he was
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: in fear of harm. Like I haven't heard it in
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: any of the witnesses, And I think that's partially why
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: the result was what it was because the witnesses the
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: defense brought they didn't really provide anything that really helped
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: their case that much. They really didn't. So that's why
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: I was shocked that Carmelo did not take the stand,
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: because at that point they were losing, they were down
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: they but he was. Him taking the stand could have
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: been the one thing that turned it around. But then
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: this also brings up the point why didn't he take
• 11:48
  Speaker 2: the stand? And again it's his right and they say,
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: you know, the jurors are not supposed to hold that
• 11:54
  Speaker 2: against him, but in practice is at the case because
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: like I said, jurors they want to hear from the defendants,
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: especially if it's self defense. But maybe there was some
• 12:07
  Speaker 2: you know, things that he said that could have made
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: the prosecution could have twisted and made look a lot worse.
• 12:13
  Speaker 2: But like one thing, I wanted to know, just personally,
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: why did he have the knife at the track meet?
• 12:21
  Speaker 2: I think everybody wanted to know that, And I don't
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: know what his answer to that would have been. I
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: don't know if he had a good reasonable answer. Maybe
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: he didn't, but that's something I think could have helped. Again,
• 12:34
  Speaker 2: this is all speculation, but I really wonder why that
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: he didn't take this, especially because he had nothing to
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: lose at this point.
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: You know, this whole case went from incident to verdict
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: in about fourteen months. Is this pretty fast for a
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: murder trial? Or is this about normal? About standard?
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: It depends for this case. I think it was about right.
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: I think the trial was quite fast. I was surprised
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: by the speed of it. But yet at the same time,
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: if you really look at it and look at the evidence,
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: not necessarily because there wasn't a whole lot for the
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: defense to work with. That's that's really what this came
• 13:17
  Speaker 2: down to me, because you know, being a defense attorney,
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: you know, I'm always thinking about how would I defend
• 13:22
  Speaker 2: this case, and I think they did the best with
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: what they had, but they didn't have much. Like you
• 13:30
  Speaker 2: you have to look at the jury is going to
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: wonder number one, why he had that knife, and so
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: you would need to explain that that's you know, hurd
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: number one. And then number two is was he reasonably
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: in fear of his life like he because it's reported
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: that he was shoved. You know, nobody necessarily says it
• 13:52
  Speaker 2: was a punch. There was some touching, and it could
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: be as much as a shove. Now how do you
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: respond with lee force to a shove? And you know,
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: Austin Metcalf was not armed clearly, So I think this
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: was really really difficult for the defense, especially in the
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: absence of you know, Carmelo Anthony taking the stand. So
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: but it was very fast and the verdict was very fast.
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: They've already started the sentencing phase like immediately, and it's
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: the it's the same jury and from what I understand,
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: they're being sequestered until they come up with the sentence.
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: So it's possible we could hear by the end of
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: the day still.
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: And we want to thank Attorney David O'tanga for joining
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: us today on Front Page and breaking down the Carmelo
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: Anthony Brio again. He has been found guilty of murder.
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: We will continue watching the sentencing phase. Please follow David
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: on Instagram and x at David Otanga, Mimi Brown and
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: this is Front Page. This podcast was brought to you
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: by the Black Effect Podcast Network