MCKINNEY, Texas — Jurors who rejected Karmelo Anthony’s self-defense claim never heard evidence about Austin Metcalf’s racist history, including graffiti calling for Black people to be killed. They also did not hear defense evidence that Metcalf had used racial slurs and bullied Black students.

Those disclosures emerged Thursday as retired Judge Michael Chitty considered whether Anthony should receive a new trial. Testimony revealed that prosecutors and Anthony’s original lawyers had an unwritten agreement to exclude character evidence about both teenagers.

Anthony, now 19, was 17 when he fatally stabbed Metcalf during an April 2025 high school track meet in Frisco. A jury convicted Anthony of murder on June 9 and sentenced him to 35 years in prison after rejecting his claim that he acted in self-defense.

Austin Metcalf’s Racist History Emerges in Court

Anthony’s trial attorney, Mike Howard, testified that an offense report named Metcalf and two other people in connection with racist and antisemitic graffiti. According to KERA’s courtroom reporting, the graffiti included “KKK,” “Kill all Black people,” the N-word, “Heil Hitler” and an upside-down cross.

Howard testified that Austin and his twin brother, Hunter Metcalf, received 12 months of juvenile probation in Denton County in connection with the vandalism. Lead prosecutor Bill Wirskye also acknowledged during the hearing that Austin Metcalf had a history of fighting and had participated in graffiti containing what Wirskye called racist material.

The graffiti was not the only anti-Black conduct discussed in court. WFAA reported that a defense motion described an October 2023 classroom incident in which Metcalf allegedly bullied a Black student and used racial slurs.

The Associated Press also reported that Howard told the court the defense possessed information showing Metcalf had used racial slurs and bullied Black classmates. The bullying allegations appeared in defense materials and were not findings made during Anthony’s murder trial.

History Connects to Anthony’s Self-Defense Claim

The disclosures carry particular weight because Anthony maintained that he acted after Metcalf confronted him and put his hands on him. Witnesses testified during the trial that Metcalf pushed or nudged Anthony during the confrontation beneath the Memorial High School team tent.

Anthony told officers at the scene, “He put his hands on me. I told him not to.” He also said he had been protecting himself.

Prosecutors presented a different account. They argued that Anthony refused repeated demands to leave the tent, reached into his bag and warned Metcalf about touching him. The state maintained that Anthony provoked the physical confrontation and used unjustified deadly force when Metcalf pushed him.

The jury heard those competing accounts. It did not hear that the teenager Anthony said confronted him had a reported history involving fighting, racial slurs, bullying a Black student and racist vandalism that advocated killing Black people.

An Off-the-Record Agreement

Wirskye testified that he proposed limiting the trial to what happened beneath the tent. He said the agreement was intended to reduce racial tensions and protect the people involved after both families, witnesses, attorneys and court officials received threats.

Howard said the agreement was never placed in writing because attorneys feared the information could leak and influence potential jurors. Both sides agreed not to introduce character, reputation or prior-conduct evidence involving Anthony, Austin Metcalf or Hunter Metcalf.

Anthony’s new attorney, Russell Wilson, argued that too much of the murder case was handled outside the courtroom and without a public record. He described the private proceedings as a “shadow docket” and questioned how a case of this magnitude generated so much off-the-record activity.

Wirskye defended the arrangement. He said Anthony’s original lawyers accepted it and that prosecutors conducted the trial ethically. He also said the unusual security measures were necessary because of the threats and intense racial hostility surrounding the case.

Prosecutors Reveal Evidence About Anthony

The agreement also kept potentially damaging information about Anthony from the jury. Wirskye testified that Anthony’s former girlfriend told a school administrator she feared him and believed he was stalking her less than two hours before the stabbing.

Prosecutors also possessed text messages involving knives, guns and violence. Reporting from the hearing said Anthony sent his former girlfriend a photograph of a knife with a message stating that he was “lowk on the verge.” Another message discussed stabbing someone and licking blood from the blade.

Wirskye argued that the messages showed Anthony was angry and focused on violence before arriving at the track meet. He told the court that Anthony went to the event “spoiling for a fight.”

The jury did not hear that material either. The off-the-record agreement protected Anthony from allegations and messages that could have severely damaged his defense, while also preventing his attorneys from presenting Metcalf’s reported history of violence, bullying and anti-Black conduct.

The withheld information did not carry the same form of proof. Howard tied the graffiti incident to an offense report and juvenile probation, while the state’s information about Anthony included messages and allegations reported to a school administrator.

Dispute Changed Anthony’s Trial Strategy

Anthony’s new attorneys argue that the agreement became a constitutional problem when prosecutors said its protections might not apply if Anthony testified. Howard said the defense had expected Anthony to take the stand and built its strategy around that possibility.

According to NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth, Howard said the defense abandoned planned testimony, expert witnesses and evidence involving the Metcalf brothers because it relied on the agreement. He said Anthony ultimately decided not to testify because doing so could have opened the door to the excluded material.

Prosecutors dispute that they violated the agreement. The state has pointed to the trial transcript, in which Howard said both sides had followed the arrangement. Anthony also told the trial judge that he had enough time to consult his lawyers and family before deciding not to testify.

Chitty must now determine whether that decision resulted from an unfair process. The defense is also challenging the jury instructions and restrictions that limited public and media access to the original trial.

Race Was Present Even When the Jury Never Heard It

Attorneys told jurors that the killing was not about race. Anthony is Black, and Metcalf was white. Yet some of the most significant evidence withheld from the courtroom concerned explicitly anti-Black conduct attributed to Metcalf.

Nothing presented Thursday established that Metcalf used a racial slur or made a racial threat during the fatal confrontation. The hearing did establish that attorneys possessed evidence of his prior anti-Black conduct and deliberately kept it from the jury.

No reporting from the hearing established that Anthony knew about Metcalf’s history before the track meet. His new lawyers are arguing, however, that the material would have changed how the defense presented the confrontation and challenged Metcalf’s alleged reputation for fighting and bullying.

Chitty Faces a Monday Deadline

Chitty inherited the motion one day after Judge John Roach Jr. was removed from Anthony’s post-trial proceedings. A visiting judge ruled that Roach’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned after Roach publicly said the jury “got it right.”

Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 21.8, a judge must rule on a criminal motion for a new trial within 75 days of sentencing. An order granting another trial must be issued in writing.

Chitty has until Monday to act. If he does not sign an order by the deadline, Anthony’s motion will be denied automatically.

As of Thursday evening, Chitty had not announced a decision. Anthony remains convicted and continues serving his 35-year sentence while the court considers whether the jury should be allowed to hear the case again.