The Flaw In A Professor’s Race-Based Defense Of Karmelo Anthony

 George Washington University law professor emerita W. Burlette Carter declared on Thursday that Karmelo Anthony was entitled to a new trial.

Anthony, 19, was convicted of murder in the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf, 17, and sentenced to serve 35 years in prison. Carter argued that because “minorities are not interchangeable,” Anthony was not provided with “a jury of his peers” at trial — and she said that alone was grounds for him to receive a new trial.

Carter, a black woman who describes herself on X as a “descendant of slaves,” prefaced her statement by admitting that she had not yet read a full transcript of the trial — but then immediately argued that she didn’t need to because it was already clear to her that Anthony had not been granted a fair trial.

“I have not yet read the full trial transcript. But so far, I do know this. Karmelo Anthony was entitled to a jury of his peers. He did not get that,” she claimed. “On that ground alone, he is entitled to a new trial. Minorities are not interchangeable. The prosecutor’s reported proffered reasons for striking all black jurors  — that they were teachers — appears to be pretext.”

But by law, a jury does not have to reflect the race of the defendant — rather, it must be made up of a reasonable cross section of the community, and both attorneys and judges are to do their best to ensure that the jury is made up of individuals who will decide the case based on the facts presented rather than preexisting biases.

The jury in Anthony’s case was made up of multiple ethnic minorities — in spite of claims made by Anthony’s father and others that the jury was “all white” — including Asian, Indian, and Hispanic. The prosecution did challenge several potential jurors who were black because they were educators and the murder had happened on school grounds. The judge accepted those challenges as valid.

“Anthony needs a new lawyer on appeal and in a new trial,” Carter continued, arguing that Anthony’s court-appointed attorney had not done a good job. She left out the fact that, after raising some $600,000 via GiveSendGo, Anthony’s family had gone with a court-appointed lawyer after claiming that he was unable to afford a private attorney.

“His trial lawyer allowed in opinion evidence that should have been struck. He also seemed unable to appreciate and counter the impact of racial overtones in that case. Those overtones are clear even on Twitter commentary as folks seek to paint Metcalf as having no culpability in what happened and Karmelo as a complete monster,” she insisted. “The facts on how the matter escalated are more complicated than that. He and they had no such authority. They are also apparent in the statements that seek to deputize Metcalf and other kids with authority to remove Anthony. They had none and initiated the conflict. That does not mean they should have been killed but it means they have explaining to do. The lawyer for Anthony apparently did not require that explaining. It is fair to ask how the Anthonys ended up selecting that lawyer.”

Her final jab was aimed at the trial judge, and she claimed that he should “be disqualified” because he gave an interview that could have “negatively affected the appeal rights of the defendant.”