Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / KARMELO ANTHONY CONVICTION TO BE TOSSED? VICTIM'S DAD RESPONDS

Transcript

KARMELO ANTHONY CONVICTION TO BE TOSSED? VICTIM'S DAD RESPONDS · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Bombshell tonight.
• 0:02
  Speaker 2: Carmelo Anthony was convicted in the murder of teen athlete
• 0:07
  Speaker 2: Austin Metcalf. But tonight, is Anthony's conviction set to be
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: thrown out, reversed, tossed? Tonight, joining us, Austin Metcalf's father responds.
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. I want to
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: thank you for being with us.
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: And why did the suspect have a knife at a
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: track meet? Anthony grabbed his bag, opened it, reached inside,
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: and said, touch me and see what happens. The suspect
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: stabbed an unarmed teen boy.
• 0:50
  Speaker 3: Hold on.
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: And I'm just protecting myself. If somebody is shooting the victim,
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: they need to be over there.
• 0:56
  Speaker 3: Don't reach for anything, all right, man?
• 0:58
  Speaker 4: Stop right there for me.
• 1:03
  Speaker 5: Dispatch 443, I got the suspects.
• 1:06
  Speaker 6: And they're currently treating the victim.
• 1:09
  Speaker 3: Again, he's on the north end of the stadium.
• 1:15
  Speaker 7: Alright, this is the 11th suspect.
• 1:17
  Speaker 8: Alright, bye.
• 1:23
  Speaker 9: Okay.
• 1:28
  Speaker 10: So nothing on your person at all?
• 1:29
  Speaker 4: Nothing.
• 1:30
  Speaker 7: Mind if I reach in your pockets and stuff and
• 1:31
  Speaker 7: all that?
• 1:32
  Speaker 10: Stab me now?
• 1:33
  Speaker 5: No, sir.
• 1:35
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 1:37
  Speaker 10: Did the jury get it right?
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they did.
• 1:40
  Speaker 5: You know why? Because they were picked based upon the law.
• 1:44
  Speaker 5: They listened to the facts. It happened here in this
• 1:48
  Speaker 5: very courtroom. And they got a verdict. And so that's
• 1:53
  Speaker 5: the process. And whatever they say, they get it right.
• 1:58
  Speaker 10: I talked to Mr.
• 1:58
  Speaker 5: Anthony a couple times because I'm legally required to go
• 2:01
  Speaker 5: over some things with him. He seems like a nice
• 2:07
  Speaker 5: young man who committed a crime. And he understands today,
• 2:13
  Speaker 5: more than any day before today, the consequences of committing
• 2:18
  Speaker 5: a crime like he did.
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: From our friends at WFAA, but to Crime Stories investigative
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: reporter Dave Mack, you hear the judge, that's Judge John Roach,
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: who presided over the murder trial, state that Carmelo Anthony
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: was a, quote, nice young man. Well, the jury did
• 2:37
  Speaker 2: not hear a lot of information regarding Mr.
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: Carmelo Anthony, such as what?
• 2:46
  Speaker 11: Carmelo Anthony had a background that the jury never heard.
• 2:51
  Speaker 11: Some kind of gentleman's agreement was struck, so the jury
• 2:54
  Speaker 11: never heard that Carmelo Anthony had a fascination with knives
• 3:01
  Speaker 11: and talked about blood and licking blood off the knife.
• 3:08
  Speaker 11: He had a number of A number of strikes against him,
• 3:12
  Speaker 11: I guess is the best way to put it. They
• 3:13
  Speaker 11: were all personal and dealt with his background growing up
• 3:16
  Speaker 11: and being in love with a knife. And the fact
• 3:19
  Speaker 11: that a knife was used in this murder, they were able,
• 3:23
  Speaker 11: the Carmelo Anthony's attorneys, were able to work a deal
• 3:27
  Speaker 11: with the prosecutors to prevent the jury from hearing this
• 3:31
  Speaker 11: personal information.
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: Dave Mack, you said a history with knives. I believe
• 3:37
  Speaker 2: specifically knives. Texts were uncovered regarding him stalking his girlfriend.
• 3:47
  Speaker 2: Texts regarding his fascination with knife violence. A statement, the
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: day of the murder, where he sends a picture of
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: the murder weapon and under it states, I'm low-key on
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: the edge. Claims that he threatened to blow up the
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: school or harm people at school. Claims of prior attacks.
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: None of that came in. Is that a correct summary
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: of the information against Mr. Carmelo Anthony that did not
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: come before the jury? Is that correct, Dave Mack? Yes, ma'am.
• 4:39
  Speaker 11: That is exactly correct, Nancy. There was so much information
• 4:42
  Speaker 11: that the jury did not hear. And it's really shocking
• 4:46
  Speaker 11: because a lot of us said, well, why would anybody
• 4:48
  Speaker 11: take a knife to attract me? Well, after seeing these messages,
• 4:52
  Speaker 11: these text messages, yeah, you kind of understand this was
• 4:56
  Speaker 11: right up his alley.
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, Dave Mack, wasn't there a
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: statement from Mr. Anthony that said he would lick, lick?
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: L-I-C-K, the blood off the knife.
• 5:13
  Speaker 3: That is exactly what he said.
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: Joining me is special guest Jeff Metcalf. This is Austin's father.
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: He is the founder of the Austin Metcalf Foundation. It
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: is a nonprofit focused on emotional regulation and conflict resolution.
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: With him is Dr. Bruce Carter.
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: The director of the Austin Metcalf Foundation. Mr.
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: Metcalf, thank you for being with us.
• 5:47
  Speaker 3: Good to see you again, Nancy.
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: There was a, quote, gentleman's agreement where that evidence did
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: not come in against Carmelo Anthony and evidence against your son,
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: the murder victim, would not come in. My question to
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: start with is, were you surprised that Carmelo Anthony said
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: he wanted to lick blood off a knife?
• 6:16
  Speaker 6: I mean, that particular statement definitely sent up red flags.
• 6:22
  Speaker 6: So it's not a normal statement that anyone would make. So, yes,
• 6:27
  Speaker 6: it concerned me.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: You know, I had a stronger reaction, I guess, than
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: you did, Mr. Metcalf, because when I have a murder...
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: committed with a knife, and a picture of the murder
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: weapon is texted the day of the murder. And underneath
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: it says, I'm low-key on the verge, coupled with claims
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: that the killer stated, I want to lick the blood
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: off the knife. I have a pretty violent reaction to that.
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: Renee Rockwell joining me, criminal defense attorney out of the
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: Atlanta jurisdiction. They should be really happy, really happy that
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: that testimony did not come into evidence. That would have
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: case closed right there.
• 7:18
  Speaker 9: So, Nancy, when you're a defense attorney, you're worried about
• 7:22
  Speaker 9: the way your client looks.
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: What is he going to wear?
• 7:27
  Speaker 9: Where is he going to sit?
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: What is his.
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: Hair going to look like? You're worried about everything.
• 7:33
  Speaker 9: The worst thing of all that can come in is
• 7:35
  Speaker 9: something that's going to make the jury hate him, make
• 7:38
  Speaker 9: the jury decide what happened before the evidence is even heard.
• 7:42
  Speaker 9: Of course you're going to leave that out. That's evidence
• 7:45
  Speaker 9: of poor character.
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: Back to Mr. Metcalfe. Mr.
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: Metcalfe, what can you tell me about this so-called gentleman's agreement?
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: Because as part of that agreement, not only was very incendiary, damning,
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: damning evidence about Carmelo Anthony kept out, but the state
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: agreed that in exchange for that, the defense would keep
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: out facts regarding Austin, like what facts were the damning
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: facts about Austin, the murder victim?
• 8:27
  Speaker 3: Well, they brought up facts about Hunter and Austin.
• 8:31
  Speaker 6: So, um, they went all the way back as far
• 8:33
  Speaker 6: as fourth grade and they pulled all school records and
• 8:37
  Speaker 6: all police records. Well, uh, they were caught spray painting graffiti, uh,
• 8:42
  Speaker 6: when they were young, that was a problem. Uh, And
• 8:46
  Speaker 6: there was an incident at school in fourth grade involving, quote,
• 8:50
  Speaker 6: an assault. But he pushed a girl to the ground.
• 8:52
  Speaker 6: It got way out of hand, obviously, and they went.
• 8:55
  Speaker 10: To the police.
• 8:56
  Speaker 3: But outside of that, the rest were basically school infractions.
• 9:00
  Speaker 6: And it went on and just documented every single thing
• 9:04
  Speaker 6: that ever happened in their life as teenagers and young children.
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: Did you say this goes, the so-called damning evidence? Was
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: him pushing a girl down on the playground in the
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: fourth grade?
• 9:17
  Speaker 3: That was one of them.
• 9:18
  Speaker 6: And the other one was that they did spray paint
• 9:20
  Speaker 6: some graffiti with some racial overtones with it. So they
• 9:27
  Speaker 6: were punished at home. They had to do 12 months probation.
• 9:32
  Speaker 6: I mean, I think that was in sixth grade. But
• 9:37
  Speaker 6: outside of that, the rest was just like in-school suspensions
• 9:40
  Speaker 6: or out-of-school suspensions.
• 9:41
  Speaker 3: Her comments made to teachers, bad language, things like that.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: Okay, let me understand.
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: How old was he when he spray painted graffiti of
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: a racist nature?
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: When was that?
• 9:53
  Speaker 3: I think they were 12, if I remember.
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: So, and exchange for that not coming in, evidence that
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: Carmelo Anthony sent a picture of the murder weapon that
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: says I'm low-key on the verge, the day of the murder,
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: and evidence that he said he wanted to lick blood
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: off the knife, I don't know.
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: Was that a fair exchange?
• 10:23
  Speaker 3: I mean, it was a deal that was struck between
• 10:26
  Speaker 3: the attorneys.
• 10:28
  Speaker 6: So the way it was presented to me was we're
• 10:31
  Speaker 6: only going to deal with what happened that day, stick
• 10:36
  Speaker 6: to the facts of what happened underneath the tent on
• 10:38
  Speaker 6: that particular day.
• 10:40
  Speaker 3: And I was okay with that.
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: So let me understand.
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: Dave Mack, the so-called gentleman's agreement agreement, occurred in chambers,
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: in camera. It was not made part of the official record,
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: the transcript. The damning evidence about Carmelo Anthony never saw
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: the light of day in the courtroom.
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: It was not part of the appellate record, to my understanding.
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: The racist graffiti that Austin Metcalfe spray-painted in, I think
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: you said 6th grade? That didn't come in. And some
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: school suspensions and pushing the girl down on the playground.
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: That didn't come in. And it's not part of the
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: trial record. Is that true?
• 11:29
  Speaker 12: Correct.
• 11:32
  Speaker 11: Everything you just said is correct.
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: So, Renee Rockwell, where this leaves me is we're looking
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: down the wrong end of a barrel of a reversal. Reversal.
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: Because this is how it played out, Renee. And Dave,
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: jump in, Mr. Metcalf, Dr. Carter, jump in if I've
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: got this wrong. But the way I understand it is this.
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: So they don't want any of this inflammatory prejudicial evidence
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: to come in on any.
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: Record, right?
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: Because the media will get a hold of it and
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: it will be on page six, right? Carmelo Anthony wants
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: to lick blood off knife. Okay. racist graffiti. It was
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: not part of the record. But then, then, here's where
• 12:25
  Speaker 2: the rub is. Here's the fly in the ointment, Renee. Then,
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: we hear, post-trial, Carmelo Anthony says, well, I wanted to
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: take the stand.
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: But when he wanted to take the.
• 12:38
  Speaker 2: Stand at trial, the prosecutor said, uh-uh, no, no, no.
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: This deal was Not to bring in his past does
• 12:46
  Speaker 2: not extend to his testimony. You have already introduced good
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: character about your client.
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: You've, quote, opened the door.
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: The state cannot bring in bad reputation on a defendant. Period.
• 13:02
  Speaker 2: Unless and until the defense opens the door by introducing
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: good character.
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: So, here's the appellate argument, Renee. Let me see, Renee Rockwell.
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: There's the knife.
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: The appellate argument is, my client's right to take the
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: stand under the Sixth.
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: Amendment was impinged.
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: Upon because they, the prosecution, broke their deal that they
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: wouldn't bring this evidence in on cross-examination about licking.
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: The knife and so forth.
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: The state is saying, no, no, no. That agreement did
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: not extend to him taking the stand, plus you brought
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: in good character. So now we have to respond with
• 13:46
  Speaker 2: this evidence.
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: That's on you.
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: This is a serious appellate issue. When it impinges on
• 13:52
  Speaker 2: your right to take the stand, you got a problem.
• 13:57
  Speaker 9: And Nancy, how else do you make a self-defense claim
• 14:02
  Speaker 9: unless you get on the stand and say, okay, I
• 14:05
  Speaker 9: did it. There was no doubt. There were 16 witnesses.
• 14:08
  Speaker 9: There's no doubt who done it. The question becomes, why
• 14:12
  Speaker 9: did you do it? And if you're going to purport
• 14:15
  Speaker 9: that you did something in self-defense, who's going to talk
• 14:18
  Speaker 9: about it if you can't take the stand? So that's
• 14:21
  Speaker 9: what they're going to be dealing with post-conviction on appeal.
• 14:26
  Speaker 9: Did he understand what the attorneys were agreeing to?
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: No, I don't think that you can argue on appeal.
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: I didn't understand what my lawyers were telling me. That's
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: not going to hold up on appeal. But if his
• 14:41
  Speaker 2: decision to take the stand was impinged upon by this
• 14:44
  Speaker 2: gentleman's agreement where there's no record of it, that's going
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: to be a problem.
• 14:49
  Speaker 7: Mr.
• 14:50
  Speaker 2: Metcalf, I'd like to hear your response to the possibility
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: that this could be reversed and we have to start
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: from scratch.
• 14:57
  Speaker 6: Me personally, I mean, the legal system will play out.
• 15:01
  Speaker 6: I have no control over it. Me personally, I don't
• 15:05
  Speaker 6: believe there are grounds to get it overturned. But if
• 15:09
  Speaker 6: it's overturned, I'll have to relive the nightmare all over again.
• 15:12
  Speaker 6: But the facts don't change. The facts are still the facts.
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: This video from our friends at NBC. Joining me now,
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: Philip Dubé, veteran trial lawyer out of the L.A. jurisdiction,
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: formerly with the L.A. Public Defender's Office.
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: Way in, Philip.
• 15:27
  Speaker 13: Before we do that, the law also says that if
• 15:30
  Speaker 13: you try to introduce bad character on a victim, it
• 15:33
  Speaker 13: opens the door to bad character on a defendant. So
• 15:36
  Speaker 13: the reverse can also be true. As soon as you
• 15:39
  Speaker 13: start saying that a victim is not peaceable, you open
• 15:42
  Speaker 13: the door to your violence or propensity for violence.
• 15:47
  Speaker 10: So it works both ways.
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: Renee Rockwell, the law is that when a defendant brings
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: on their good character, oh, he's a choir boy, he's
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: never been in trouble, he's never had a conviction. As
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: soon as the defense puts up good character on their client,
• 16:08
  Speaker 2: I would wait for it. I'd wait because I would
• 16:11
  Speaker 2: have a stack of convictions of prior bad acts.
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: You name it.
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: Waiting for the defendant to take the stand. If they
• 16:20
  Speaker 2: brought in good character, bam, I'm all over that with
• 16:26
  Speaker 2: bad character. But if the defendant never brings up good character,
• 16:31
  Speaker 2: I can't bring it in. It just sits there and
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: it gets locked away. when the trial is over with
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: all the other documents. It is illegal, it is unconstitutional
• 16:41
  Speaker 2: to bring in a defendant's bad character until and unless.
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: The defense brings in good character. Do you agree? I agree.
• 16:51
  Speaker 9: Now, the question becomes, they have this handshake deal where
• 16:56
  Speaker 9: they're not going to talk about anybody's character. And they're
• 16:59
  Speaker 9: not going to talk about what he would have said
• 17:01
  Speaker 9: about licking a knife or low-key on the verge. That
• 17:05
  Speaker 9: sounds like premeditation to me, Nancy. But if you want
• 17:11
  Speaker 9: to support a self-defense claim, you have to take the stand.
• 17:17
  Speaker 9: The problem is, had he taken the stand, here comes
• 17:21
  Speaker 9: the state saying, that's fine, we're going to bring in
• 17:24
  Speaker 9: all this bad character. State should not have been able
• 17:27
  Speaker 9: to do that without him opening the door to character.
• 17:31
  Speaker 9: Him meaning Carmela. opening the door and saying, hey, I'm
• 17:35
  Speaker 9: just a choir boy. I'm a good kid. I would
• 17:37
  Speaker 9: have never done that unless provoked.
• 17:40
  Speaker 6: This morning was the first day I woke up with
• 17:43
  Speaker 6: a feeling of peace, comfort, tranquility that I haven't experienced
• 17:53
  Speaker 6: in 14 months.
• 17:55
  Speaker 3: What killed me.
• 17:59
  Speaker 6: Was the body cam footage when I could hear hunters screaming.
• 18:03
  Speaker 6: Oh God, oh God, my brother, my twin. And if
• 18:09
  Speaker 6: you have children, and if it was your child who
• 18:12
  Speaker 6: was murdered, would you like people dragging his name through
• 18:16
  Speaker 6: the mud, making memes, making jokes, and just really vile comments?
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: From our friends at CBS, Mr. Metcalfe.
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: What is your reaction to the proposition this case could
• 18:34
  Speaker 2: very well be reversed and all of that happens again?
• 18:42
  Speaker 6: I mean, I'll meet it head on, just like any
• 18:44
  Speaker 6: other problems we do. I'm not going to avoid it.
• 18:48
  Speaker 6: I'm not going to try to deflect. It'd be the
• 18:52
  Speaker 6: same thing. The facts are still the facts. And I
• 18:56
  Speaker 6: think if this evidence is introduced now that it's out
• 18:58
  Speaker 6: in the open, it will be introduced in a new trial,
• 19:02
  Speaker 6: I generally believe he'll get more than the original sentence.
• 19:07
  Speaker 2: Everyone actually lied on the stand. Everyone.
• 19:10
  Speaker 7: All of the witnesses' statements were inconsistent.
• 19:13
  Speaker 4: All of them.
• 19:14
  Speaker 14: We called about 17 eyewitnesses, and it was a very
• 19:17
  Speaker 14: diverse group of young men and women that came into
• 19:21
  Speaker 14: court to testify. And the jury that saw that quickly
• 19:26
  Speaker 14: realized this case was never about race. This case was
• 19:30
  Speaker 14: about murder, plain and simple.
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: From CBS 11 and Fox.
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: You know, it's very murky what will happen if this
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: evidence does come in. But that is not the issue tonight.
• 19:44
  Speaker 2: The issue is, will there be a reversal? Now, it's
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: not okay. unusual, is it, Renee Rockwell, for once there's
• 19:53
  Speaker 2: a conviction, the whole trial team is thrown out. They're
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: gone because the new appellate team taking the conviction, trying
• 20:02
  Speaker 2: to get a reversal, will very likely trash the trial lawyers.
• 20:06
  Speaker 2: That gave it their all at trial. That's what's happening here.
• 20:10
  Speaker 2: The trial team is out. Now there's a new appellate team.
• 20:13
  Speaker 2: Explain how that works.
• 20:15
  Speaker 9: And what you have to say at this level and
• 20:19
  Speaker 9: at this point, the new lawyers will say the old
• 20:24
  Speaker 9: trial team was ineffective. The claim is ineffective assistance of counsel.
• 20:30
  Speaker 9: Maybe they shouldn't have made that deal. Maybe they should
• 20:33
  Speaker 9: have put him on the stand. How are you going
• 20:35
  Speaker 9: to support a self-defense claim without putting the client on
• 20:39
  Speaker 9: the stand? Of course, they're saying, 20-20 hindsight, they're saying
• 20:44
  Speaker 9: that the first trial team messed up.
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: But that is not uncommon, Renee. This is from our
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: friends at NBC. That is expected amongst trial lawyers. You
• 20:54
  Speaker 2: get a conviction... you are going to be blasted, lambasted
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: on appeal. Everything you did, if you sneezed in court,
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: that's going to go on appeal. Because the best avenue
• 21:08
  Speaker 2: some defendants have is to say, my trial lawyer sucked.
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: That's illegal. It happens all the time, Nancy. It happens
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: all the time. It's nothing new. Don't take it personally,
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: trial team. It happens every day.
• 21:23
  Speaker 9: Not necessarily Latin, but here's what happens. In your motion
• 21:27
  Speaker 9: for new trial, attorneys are often placed on the stand.
• 21:30
  Speaker 9: The defense attorneys are placed on the stand. Isn't it
• 21:33
  Speaker 9: true you didn't call the client? Isn't it true that
• 21:38
  Speaker 9: the client wanted to testify? Did you include him when
• 21:42
  Speaker 9: you were making this gentleman's agreement? How are you going
• 21:45
  Speaker 9: to support a self-defense claim without putting him on the stand?
• 21:49
  Speaker 9: There were 16 witnesses to the contrary who was there
• 21:53
  Speaker 9: stating that he was afraid, afraid of grave bodily injury
• 21:57
  Speaker 9: or death, and that he felt like he was forced
• 22:02
  Speaker 9: to pull the knife out. How are you going to
• 22:04
  Speaker 9: do it without it?
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: Well, that's where this is going.
• 22:07
  Speaker 9: Exactly, Nancy.
• 22:08
  Speaker 2: If this is retried and this inflammatory evidence comes in,
• 22:12
  Speaker 2: the defense will be, Because Austin Metcalf sprayed racist graffiti in, what,
• 22:19
  Speaker 2: sixth or seventh grade? That he hated African Americans. And so, therefore,
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: when Carmelo Anthony comes in, he already had a grudge.
• 22:30
  Speaker 2: So he was threatening. That's a far jump. But that
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: will be the defense.
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: That's what the defense will be.
• 22:38
  Speaker 2: Absolutely. But I'm telling you, it will hurt the defense.
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: It will hurt the defense a lot more.
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: If that evidence comes in on Carmelo Anthony, sending a
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: picture of the murder, let's throw it to Dubay, sending
• 22:52
  Speaker 2: a picture of the murder weapon with the caption, I'm
• 22:59
  Speaker 2: low-key on the verge, talking about he wants to lick
• 23:02
  Speaker 2: blood off the weapon. I mean, that's damning if the
• 23:08
  Speaker 2: jury hears that. I mean, I think that by keeping
• 23:10
  Speaker 2: all this out, Anthony got the long end of the stick.
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: That evidence would have hurt him a lot more than
• 23:17
  Speaker 2: the evidence against Metcalf.
• 23:19
  Speaker 13: Yeah, I would rather leave the record silent at that
• 23:21
  Speaker 13: point and make him look like an altar boy, frankly. Listen,
• 23:25
  Speaker 13: gentleman agreements are reached every day in our trial courts.
• 23:28
  Speaker 13: We do it all the time for brevity's sake and
• 23:30
  Speaker 13: for tactical reasons. No higher court is going to disturb
• 23:34
  Speaker 13: this verdict because of a tactical or strategic decision made
• 23:38
  Speaker 13: by defense counsel.
• 23:40
  Speaker 3: That's what we do.
• 23:41
  Speaker 13: And that is the type of choice, whether or not
• 23:43
  Speaker 13: to introduce character evidence is made by counsel, not the client.
• 23:48
  Speaker 13: The only thing that the client gets to decide is
• 23:51
  Speaker 13: whether or not he wants a jury and he wants
• 23:53
  Speaker 13: a jury to sentence him and whether or not he
• 23:55
  Speaker 13: testifies and whether or not he wants to concede guilt.
• 23:59
  Speaker 13: But otherwise, counsel is the captain of the ship.
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: Well, I'm telling you, I don't know what goes on
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: in your jurisdiction of L.A., but I never had gentleman agreements.
• 24:08
  Speaker 2: I put everything on the record. And frankly, I said,
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: bring it on. You got something on my victim? If
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: you think you can figure out a way to get
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: it in legally, have at it. Because I'll think of
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: a way to keep it out legally. But that's just me. What?
• 24:25
  Speaker 13: I'll give you another example where we have these gentlemen agreements. So,
• 24:28
  Speaker 13: for example, I might make an agreement with the prosecution
• 24:32
  Speaker 13: not to ever object to each other during our opening
• 24:35
  Speaker 13: statement or our closing argument.
• 24:37
  Speaker 10: Oh, hell no. Uh-uh.
• 24:40
  Speaker 9: What?
• 24:41
  Speaker 6: No.
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: I'm changing the opening statements all the time.
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: If it's illegal, no problem.
• 24:46
  Speaker 13: If it's blatantly illegal, yeah. But just to break our
• 24:49
  Speaker 13: stride and take the wind out of our sails when
• 24:51
  Speaker 13: we're trying to tell our story to a jury, as
• 24:54
  Speaker 13: a professional, we don't do that to each other. That
• 24:57
  Speaker 13: is a gentleman's agreement. That's how you practice law.
• 25:00
  Speaker 2: Well, I think that under the Code of Ethics, you
• 25:04
  Speaker 2: don't do that. And you only object when there is
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: a reason to object. You don't just object to irritate
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: the other lawyer. But there's no way I would agree
• 25:15
  Speaker 2: not to object if they did something wrong.
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: H-E-L-L-N-O.
• 25:20
  Speaker 2: I want an objection and a ruling in my favor.
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: If the defense is doing anything they're not supposed to do.
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: Misstating facts. I don't care what it is.
• 25:30
  Speaker 2: We're going to the mat. But, you know, maybe that's
• 25:32
  Speaker 2: why I'm not a gentleman. In this case, though, Philip,
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: do you see, I see what the defense is arguing,
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: that because of this agreement that when he wanted to
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: take the stand, that he was chilled. He's claiming he
• 25:48
  Speaker 2: couldn't take the stand because all this evidence against him
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: would come in and the state's saying, yeah, because you
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: brought in good character.
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: You violated the agreement.
• 26:00
  Speaker 13: Loose versus United States 1984 says that unless and until
• 26:04
  Speaker 13: you take the stand and get impeached with that behavior,
• 26:08
  Speaker 13: it is non-appealable, period, because nobody can assess the weight
• 26:12
  Speaker 13: or the effect or the impact that that impeachment will
• 26:15
  Speaker 13: have on a defendant. Unless and until he takes the stand,
• 26:19
  Speaker 13: he's waiving that point on appeal.
• 26:21
  Speaker 10: That's the law of the land.
• 26:26
  Speaker 2: Tonight, Will Carmelo Anthony... convicted killer of star athlete Austin
• 26:34
  Speaker 2: Metcalf get a new trial? Is this conviction headed for reversal?
• 26:42
  Speaker 12: He's going to prison! Yay! Am I supposed to be excited?
• 26:45
  Speaker 12: Guess what?
• 26:46
  Speaker 8: I'm not. Because I don't promote and I don't accept.
• 26:53
  Speaker 8: I feel sorry for that young man. He's fixing to
• 26:56
  Speaker 8: live a living hell. Not that he doesn't deserve it.
• 27:01
  Speaker 12: Yes, he does. But I'm human. I want to move on.
• 27:06
  Speaker 7: I don't want to keep dragging things out. And if
• 27:10
  Speaker 7: they spend all the money, there's nothing to get anyway.
• 27:12
  Speaker 7: So I really don't care. Money's not going to bring
• 27:15
  Speaker 7: my son back. Going after them, even if I bankrupt
• 27:19
  Speaker 7: them or whatever, it's not going to bring my son back.
• 27:24
  Speaker 12: Austin will never come back through that door again. That boy?
• 27:28
  Speaker 12: He has the ability right now, actually, to be out
• 27:32
  Speaker 12: before he's 40. He could still have a life and kids.
• 27:39
  Speaker 12: You tell me, you think that's justice?
• 27:42
  Speaker 6: Nah.
• 27:43
  Speaker 12: No, I'm not happy with the sentence. No, there was
• 27:46
  Speaker 12: no justice served.
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: That from Jinxip slash Rumble, Jeff Metcalf, if this is reversed,
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: and there are strong indications it could be, Are you
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: prepared to go back to court every single day the
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: way you did the first time?
• 28:06
  Speaker 3: Well, Nancy, I.
• 28:07
  Speaker 6: Don't know if you're aware of the hearings that just happened. One,
• 28:11
  Speaker 6: Judge Roach was recused on Wednesday, and then they had
• 28:15
  Speaker 6: a motion for a new trial Thursday and Friday. That
• 28:18
  Speaker 6: was denied by a judge who replaced Judge Roach. So,
• 28:24
  Speaker 6: The only thing left is for the actual appeal to
• 28:27
  Speaker 6: work its way through the appellate court now, which will
• 28:30
  Speaker 6: take some time, probably one to two years. Do I
• 28:35
  Speaker 6: feel like they have enough grounds to reverse it?
• 28:38
  Speaker 4: No.
• 28:39
  Speaker 3: Or I think it would have been granted a new
• 28:41
  Speaker 3: trial at this hearing.
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: No, I have to disagree with you, Mr. Metcalf.
• 28:45
  Speaker 2: And my question was, are you prepared to go to
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: court every single day if there.
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: Is a new trial?
• 28:49
  Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am. One hundred percent.
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: Okay, here's the.
• 28:54
  Speaker 2: Deal, Renee and Philip. Renee Rockwell, Philip Dubé, both veteran
• 28:59
  Speaker 2: defense attorneys. Renee, first to you. Motion for new trial.
• 29:03
  Speaker 4: Mr.
• 29:03
  Speaker 2: Metcalf is encouraged by the fact that a different judge
• 29:10
  Speaker 2: at the same level as the trial judge who has
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: been recused said no motion for new trial.
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: They very rarely are granted.
• 29:18
  Speaker 2: A motion for new trial is very simply the first
• 29:21
  Speaker 2: step In the appellate process, it's practically routine because you
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: typically are asking the judge who tried the case, hey, judge,
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: reverse yourself because you're really screwed up.
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: Never happens.
• 29:35
  Speaker 2: Or the case got screwed up under your watch.
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: It happens. sometimes, but it's very rare. I know it's
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: not never, but it's very rare.
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: I believe that was my phraseology. It rarely happens.
• 29:46
  Speaker 6: Rare.
• 29:48
  Speaker 5: However.
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: Okay, do you agree with that, Dubé?
• 29:51
  Speaker 2: A motion for a new trial is rarely granted.
• 29:54
  Speaker 10: If ever.
• 29:55
  Speaker 13: They are so rarely granted, it's not even possible. If ever,
• 29:59
  Speaker 13: they're just not granted. One time I brought a motion
• 30:02
  Speaker 13: for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The court
• 30:04
  Speaker 13: found harmless error. That went nowhere. The client stood convicted
• 30:08
  Speaker 13: and went off to prison to do his time.
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, basically, it would be like me saying, hey, Dubay,
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: everything you've said in the last hour is wrong.
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: So just you want to reverse it? You go, no,
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: that's not true. I'm not reversing it. That's what it's like.
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: You go back to the trial judge and say, hey,
• 30:26
  Speaker 2: you screwed up big time, buddy.
• 30:27
  Speaker 1: Let's just start all over again.
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: That's not going to happen. And it goes up on appeal.
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: This is just simply the beginning of the appellate process.
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: So did Carmelo Anthony actually want to testify?
• 30:42
  Speaker 9: And did Carmelo want to testify on his own behalf
• 30:45
  Speaker 9: and was acquitted?
• 30:48
  Speaker 3: It was based on everything.
• 30:49
  Speaker 4: It didn't need nothing because everything they said on his self-defense,
• 30:53
  Speaker 4: they have to prove it.
• 30:54
  Speaker 10: They never proved it.
• 30:55
  Speaker 14: And a lot of times in self-defense cases, the conventional
• 30:58
  Speaker 14: wisdom is you're not going to win on self-defense unless
• 31:01
  Speaker 14: you call your client. So I was hoping he would
• 31:03
  Speaker 14: take the stand. I was hoping jurors in our community
• 31:06
  Speaker 14: would get to hear whatever story he chose to tell.
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: From our friends at The Breakfast Club and Fox, and
• 31:14
  Speaker 2: what was said at the beginning, someone.
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: did.
• 31:17
  Speaker 2: Not communicate the law to family members because Renee Rockwell
• 31:22
  Speaker 2: and Philip Dubé, self-defense is an affirmative defense. The burden
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: is not on the state.
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: To prove self-defense.
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: It is on the defense. Hence, it is called affirmative defense.
• 31:37
  Speaker 2: It basically says, yes, I did it, but I acted
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: in self-defense. And then the onus is on the defense
• 31:44
  Speaker 2: to prove it. So it's not on the state-approved self-defense, Renee.
• 31:50
  Speaker 9: How do you do it unless you put your client
• 31:52
  Speaker 9: on the stand, Nancy? So that's what his position is now.
• 31:56
  Speaker 9: I was chilled because of this agreement, and I really
• 32:00
  Speaker 9: wanted to testify, but then they threw all this back
• 32:03
  Speaker 9: at me, so I couldn't testify.
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Nail on head. Phillip, elaborate.
• 32:12
  Speaker 13: If the young man was told that, should he take
• 32:15
  Speaker 13: the stand, his bad character could come in somehow, should
• 32:18
  Speaker 13: he try to implicate Austin Metcalf as having a history
• 32:21
  Speaker 13: of violence, it would have opened the door to his
• 32:23
  Speaker 13: bad character, and he would have been grilled like a
• 32:26
  Speaker 13: cheeseburger on cross-examination. And frankly, because under Texas law the
• 32:30
  Speaker 13: jury gets to sentence him because he waived his right
• 32:33
  Speaker 13: to have the judge do it, I could see a
• 32:35
  Speaker 13: jury slamming him with more than 35 years when all
• 32:38
  Speaker 13: that prior bad conduct comes in.
• 32:40
  Speaker 7: On....
• 32:42
  Speaker 2: A positive note, as we wait to find out if
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: this whole thing is going to be reversed and we
• 32:48
  Speaker 2: start all over with jury selection, Dr. Bruce Carter is
• 32:53
  Speaker 2: with us. I know you have been seeing him on
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: screen with Mr.
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: Metcalf. He is the director at the Austin Metcalf Foundation.
• 33:02
  Speaker 2: Dr. Carter, could you explain the purpose of the foundation
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: and your involvement? How did you get involved? Why do
• 33:11
  Speaker 2: you believe it's necessary? Why do you want to be
• 33:14
  Speaker 2: involved in Austin's Foundation?
• 33:17
  Speaker 4: Well, the first thing is it's necessary. Well, the mission
• 33:21
  Speaker 4: is to prevent the next Austin Metcalf, Camillo, Anthony interaction
• 33:25
  Speaker 4: becoming deadly or someone going to prison. I became involved
• 33:30
  Speaker 4: because I met Jeff as he was kicked out of
• 33:33
  Speaker 4: a press conference, maybe three weeks after Austin was killed.
• 33:37
  Speaker 10: And he just leaned on me. We'd have conversations. back
• 33:40
  Speaker 10: and forth. And once this was over with, he called
• 33:43
  Speaker 10: me and said, man, I found my purpose.
• 33:45
  Speaker 4: I want to start a nonprofit and it's the Austin
• 33:49
  Speaker 4: Metcalf Foundation.
• 33:50
  Speaker 10: I want you to help me organize it.
• 33:52
  Speaker 4: After a four-hour meeting at Hutchins Barbecue, it went from
• 33:56
  Speaker 4: me organizing to be a part of the foundation.
• 33:59
  Speaker 10: And at that meeting, when I agreed to do it,
• 34:03
  Speaker 10: what Jeff did was this.
• 34:04
  Speaker 4: He was very clear that, hey, man, I want you
• 34:06
  Speaker 4: to know my kids did this.
• 34:08
  Speaker 10: There was some graffiti. They use racist tone.
• 34:12
  Speaker 4: I want you to be really clear what you're walking
• 34:14
  Speaker 4: into because you're going to be ridiculed. But at the
• 34:17
  Speaker 4: end of the day, the purpose of what this organization
• 34:21
  Speaker 4: will do is greater than the ridicule that I do
• 34:24
  Speaker 4: get for working with Jeff. But we're going to save
• 34:27
  Speaker 4: some lives and we've already started that process. So I'm 100%
• 34:32
  Speaker 4: committed and make sure that we get the job done.
• 34:35
  Speaker 4: And for those who have an issue with a young
• 34:39
  Speaker 4: kid who had some stuff in his background, his name
• 34:42
  Speaker 4: will eventually have one kid say, the Austin Metcalf Foundation
• 34:46
  Speaker 4: helped me change the way I responded.
• 34:48
  Speaker 10: And that's going to be the victory.
• 34:52
  Speaker 2: I pray to our Holy Father in heaven that you
• 34:57
  Speaker 2: are right.
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: With me.
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: Dr.
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: Bruce C.
• 35:02
  Speaker 2: Carter, he is the director of the Austin Metcalf Foundation,
• 35:06
  Speaker 2: along with Austin's father, Jeff Metcalf now endeavoring to change
• 35:14
  Speaker 2: the world in their own way. What really happened in
• 35:19
  Speaker 2: that gentleman's agreement? Was Carmelo Anthony's constitutional rights violated or
• 35:26
  Speaker 2: did he avoid the stand because he didn't want to
• 35:28
  Speaker 2: get grilled on cross-exam?
• 35:32
  Speaker 1: We wait as justice unfolds.
• 35:35
  Speaker 2: If you know or think you know anything regarding this case, 972-292-6010.
• 35:47
  Speaker 12: 972-292-6010.
• 35:50
  Speaker 2: We remember an American hero, Detective Justin Terry, Vegas Metropolitan PD,
• 35:55
  Speaker 2: killed in the line of duty after serving the public
• 35:58
  Speaker 2: 21 years, leaving behind a wife, now widow, Stacy, and sons,
• 36:04
  Speaker 2: Sean and Jacob. American hero, Detective Justin Terry. Terry.
• 36:11
  Speaker 1: Thank you to our guests, but thank you for being
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: with us tonight.
• 36:15
  Speaker 2: Nancy Grace signing off, but I'll see you tomorrow night.
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: And until then, good night, friend.