Speaker 1: Hey, that folks. It is Sunday, August twenty third. Carmelo
Speaker 1: Anthony has been denied his request for a new trial
Speaker 1: and a decision that came down late. And with that,
Speaker 1: welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Rookes didn't
Speaker 1: expect it when we got it, had two days of
Speaker 1: hearings Carmelo Anthony. People know this story by now. This
Speaker 1: was a really really big deal. As of now his
Speaker 1: conviction stands.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it was sur It was surprising to me
Speaker 2: the decision itself, and it was also surprising the timing
Speaker 2: of when it came out. It's very rare that you
Speaker 2: get a late Saturday ruling from a judge and one
Speaker 2: that had been closely watched, because Thursday and Friday of
Speaker 2: last week were just jaw dropping in terms of what
Speaker 2: we learned that we didn't know and what George didn't
Speaker 2: know going into the trial.
Speaker 1: M man and we thought it was nasty before whoooo u.
Speaker 1: Of course, this young man at the age of seventeen
Speaker 1: at a track meet with another seventeen year old and
Speaker 1: an opposing team and a different school. You know this
Speaker 1: by now. A lot of folks. There was a confrontation
Speaker 1: between the two Carmelo. Anthony is black, Austin Metcalf is white.
Speaker 1: Whatever confrontation that did happen, Carmelo pulls out a knife,
Speaker 1: stabs the young man in the chest. He dies, now robes.
Speaker 1: That gets us to what was really an awful several
Speaker 1: months of back and forth leading up to that trial
Speaker 1: because race became such a part of the dynamic.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then it was even worse. I think once
Speaker 2: the verdict came down, then both sides polarized even more,
Speaker 2: if that was possible. But then we started hearing from
Speaker 2: Austin Metcalf's dad, who was obviously in pain and just
Speaker 2: started going on podcast and took things to another level.
Speaker 1: Was it watermelon? Mellow watermelon? He called them something along
Speaker 1: those lines, nothing short of absolutely atrocious racist language. There's
Speaker 1: some stuff you'd give somebody a pass on. Being angry
Speaker 1: and upset and yelling and screaming. This was something else.
Speaker 1: This was racist.
Speaker 2: He had every right to feel anger, as I would
Speaker 2: think anyone who has lost a child to violence. When
Speaker 2: you are talking about the person who took your son
Speaker 2: from you, who killed your son, we all understand, well,
Speaker 2: we can imagine I'll take the back. We don't understand,
Speaker 2: but we can imagine how gutting an awful and angry
Speaker 2: and frustrated you would be. But that doesn't excuse racist,
Speaker 2: vile terms than being hurled at someone, which, of course
Speaker 2: then in sight an entire community and raise the stakes
Speaker 2: and have everyone going to their corners and create just
Speaker 2: this ugliness on top of something that was already brutal
Speaker 2: and ugly. You've made things significantly worse.
Speaker 1: And things are unfortunately, at least the language JH has
Speaker 1: gotten significantly worse after what we saw at this mini hearing,
Speaker 1: I guess you will. It was a mini trial, I
Speaker 1: should say, but it was a hearing on a motion
Speaker 1: to get him a new trial. Robes, it was watermelon felon.
Speaker 1: By the way, oh god, is what he called carmelo
Speaker 1: anthony after the trial watermelon felon. So, Robes, do you
Speaker 1: hear that? And like, wow, where did that? Is not
Speaker 1: normal to speak like that. We might have an indication
Speaker 1: of where that came from or who it passed to,
Speaker 1: who it passed to? There it is, but at least
Speaker 1: getting into what happened here. The ruling from the judge
Speaker 1: he said this, and it was short and sweetened to
Speaker 1: the point upon reviewing the motion, the record and the
Speaker 1: evidence and argument that briefs, and the relevant case law,
Speaker 1: the court has determined that the motion should be denied,
Speaker 1: period point blank. He is not getting, at least at
Speaker 1: this point a new trial robes the centerpiece of this motion.
Speaker 1: For them trying to get a new trial had to do.
Speaker 1: I don't even know how this is legally allowed. A
Speaker 1: gentleman's agreement that was made in the first trial in
Speaker 1: his trial between the prosecutors and the defense rope to
Speaker 1: keep certain character evidence out of the trial.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this feels like, I don't know, old days, old times,
Speaker 2: something that happened before we had the legal system in
Speaker 2: place that we do today. It does seem icky and
Speaker 2: it shouldn't be legal. It feels like to me, this
Speaker 2: should be something a judge should have decided, And that's
Speaker 2: how we typically see these arrangements made. Obviously, in plenty
Speaker 2: of cases, a judge rules what's admissible and what's not,
Speaker 2: and whether or not past acts or past behavior should
Speaker 2: be allowed to be considered by jurors. But the point
Speaker 2: being a judge makes that decision, and both sides make
Speaker 2: their arguments to that judge outside of the jury to
Speaker 2: hear that that's not how this agreement came about. Is
Speaker 2: deeply concerning.
Speaker 1: Folks, to be clear here, in that first trial, and
Speaker 1: this is something we did not know about as the public,
Speaker 1: the prosecutor, and the defense essentially shook hands and say, hey,
Speaker 1: we're not going to say the bad stuff about Carmelo's
Speaker 1: past if you don't say the bad stuff about Austin
Speaker 1: Metcalf's past. That was the agreement to keep character stuff
Speaker 1: out to where all we're going to talk about in
Speaker 1: this trial is what happened on that day, Robes. Why
Speaker 1: would both sides agree to this? It seems like they
Speaker 1: thought it was beneficial in some way to both sides
Speaker 1: to do this.
Speaker 2: Yes, but should it be their decision and not a
Speaker 2: judge's about what's relevant and what's not because clearly to
Speaker 2: say it's only about what happened in that small window
Speaker 2: of time that led to Carmelo Anthony's stabbing Austin Metcalf
Speaker 2: in the heart essentially, But wouldn't we need to know
Speaker 2: what led to that moment, what each person Austin Metcalf,
Speaker 2: Carmelo Anthony was thinking and feeling leading up to that horrific,
Speaker 2: tragic moment I would say yes because it would It
Speaker 2: would absolutely, I think help the defense because wouldn't we
Speaker 2: need to know state of mind and frame of reference
Speaker 2: and any reputation that Austin Metcalf might bring to the
Speaker 2: confrontation in addition to his size, Like, shouldn't I can't imagine.
Speaker 2: I know, obviously, what were we learned about Carmelo Anthony
Speaker 2: wasn't great and absolutely would have been used against him.
Speaker 2: So yeah, But at the same time, what we didn't
Speaker 2: know about Austin Metcalf could absolutely have influenced a jury
Speaker 2: to think, you know what, he had every right to
Speaker 2: think his life was being threatened.
Speaker 1: And then the other side would make the argument is that, look,
Speaker 1: Carmelo Anthony came and he owed up already as a
Speaker 1: violent person, as a person who had what on the
Speaker 1: verge was a text that he's saying, we're gonna get
Speaker 1: through that stuff here in a second. If you haven't
Speaker 1: heard it, it is remarkable Robes that the backgrounds of
Speaker 1: these two young men were not known by the jury.
Speaker 1: Now does that matter? Should it matter? That's not for
Speaker 1: me to say, it's for them. The jury didn't get
Speaker 1: a chance to decide this because a couple of attorneys
Speaker 1: shook hands in a back room.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I look at it from being a potential jurors perspective,
Speaker 2: and as a juror, just ask yourself, would you rather
Speaker 2: know as much information as possible to make the best
Speaker 2: decision possible? And look, I don't believe, I don't think
Speaker 2: I could be wrong, but I think a lot of
Speaker 2: folks think it would have still been a very tough
Speaker 2: hill for Carmelo Anthony's defense team to climb given what
Speaker 2: we know about what happened that day. But I would
Speaker 2: think that the sentencing would have been deeply impacted by
Speaker 2: some of this information, or there would be a better
Speaker 2: understanding about Carmelo's Carmelo Anthony's state of mind in those moments.
Speaker 2: And just as a juror, wouldn't we all prefer to
Speaker 2: have as much information as possible to make the best
Speaker 2: decision possible? Because maybe he would have gotten there were
Speaker 2: several murder charges available. Correct, it didn't have to be
Speaker 2: first degree, It could be second degree, There could have
Speaker 2: and all of those other factors could have absolutely played
Speaker 2: a role in what they found, which charges they found
Speaker 2: Carmelo Anthony guilty of.
Speaker 1: Uh, all of that makes sense. I am kind of
Speaker 1: blown away by this by two guys in a back.
Speaker 1: The judge had nothing to do with it. It seems
Speaker 1: like malpractices. It seems like it shouldn't be like And again,
Speaker 1: maybe this is some common thing that happens that we
Speaker 1: don't hear about it distance happened to be a high
Speaker 1: profile case. But whatever the case, the new judge, and
Speaker 1: again we should remind you this was a new judge
Speaker 1: as well, because the defense did want a new judge
Speaker 1: to hear this. Because the other guy was out there
Speaker 1: popping off at the mouth. It made it.
Speaker 2: Sound like the jury got it right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we kind of do its side he was on,
Speaker 1: but they did get a new judge. Now, Carmelo Anthony's
Speaker 1: attorneys will share the statement that they did put out
Speaker 1: in road. Just so far, it sounds like this is
Speaker 1: only the first step in this fight.
Speaker 2: Yes, they absolutely made it clear that they were not
Speaker 2: going to be just saying okay, well we're done, that
Speaker 2: this was just the first step, and they did realize
Speaker 2: that there would be more to come. This was their
Speaker 2: official statement. We are disappointed that the court denied our
Speaker 2: motion for a new trial. We respectfully disagree with the ruling.
Speaker 2: And remain firmly committed to protecting our client's rights. We
Speaker 2: believe the issues raised in our motion are substantial and
Speaker 2: deserve meaningful appellate review. The denial of our motion does
Speaker 2: not end this case. We will continue the appeal in
Speaker 2: the Fifth Court of Appeals and pursue every legal remedy
Speaker 2: available to our client. Our commitment to our client has
Speaker 2: not changed. We will continue to advocate vigorously on his
Speaker 2: behalf through every lawful avenue available.
Speaker 1: So then the next avenue is going to be Court
Speaker 1: of Appeals. What they've already said they are going to
Speaker 1: be going forward with. I thought this was just interesting.
Speaker 1: There's a group out there stand with Carmelo Coalition, and
Speaker 1: they do. They put up a website and they follow
Speaker 1: this case, and it's pretty substantial group growth. They are
Speaker 1: They have been following this and giving significant updates. They
Speaker 1: put out a pretty long statement, but some of the
Speaker 1: relevant parts here are kind of underlining That jumped out
Speaker 1: to me. Robes is the defense made consequential decisions throughout
Speaker 1: the trial and reliance upon an agreement with the state
Speaker 1: concerning the evidence that would and would not be introduced,
Speaker 1: only to have the state change his position at a
Speaker 1: critical point in the proceedings. They explained in a very
Speaker 1: succinct way, but Robes that is the point they're saying
Speaker 1: is that the state changed and therefore, when they did,
Speaker 1: the defense was not comfortable putting Carmelo Anthony on the
Speaker 1: stand in his own defense. That's a significant argument that
Speaker 1: he didn't get a chance to speak at his own
Speaker 1: trial because of this deal that was made. Now, obviously
Speaker 1: you could take the stand if you want to, you
Speaker 1: have the right, but how is the deal then valid
Speaker 1: because it wasn't officially on the record.
Speaker 2: It's so bizarre and it's such a legal gray area
Speaker 2: given how they did it. It seems so strange. If
Speaker 2: this had been done in front of a judge, this
Speaker 2: would be verifiable and you'd be able to look at
Speaker 2: the records. And so that's why this kind of thing
Speaker 2: shouldn't be legal, because now it's just murky and confusing.
Speaker 2: To be honest, I'm curious too, because, yes, the defense
Speaker 2: has said the reason why Anthony Carmelo Anthony didn't take
Speaker 2: the stand was because they didn't feel comfortable anymore with
Speaker 2: this deal. Did they get specific as to what the
Speaker 2: prosecution did or did not do that made them start
Speaker 2: to question that they were holding up their end of
Speaker 2: the bargain or that they would hold up their end
Speaker 2: of the barblet.
Speaker 1: There was one and I guess we were more familiar
Speaker 1: with this on legal shows and whatnot. But he well, no,
Speaker 1: we watch a lot of actual courtrooms. But that moment
Speaker 1: when one thing is said in the opposing side will say, well,
Speaker 1: they opened the door. There was something that was testified
Speaker 1: to in court that they felt the state at least
Speaker 1: they opened the door to it. Now we can go
Speaker 1: we don't have to honor this deal. That was the feeling.
Speaker 1: Of course the defense didn't agree. But Roes, how can
Speaker 1: you go to court and argue that the state violated
Speaker 1: an agreement? What agreement?
Speaker 2: Exactly?
Speaker 1: Where is it? What a judge could admonish the state
Speaker 1: if he had told them to do a certain thing
Speaker 1: and then they didn't do it. That's not the case.
Speaker 1: This is like a contract. Robes, How is somebody gonna
Speaker 1: come sue us because we said one time in a
Speaker 1: subway that we were going to hire them for something
Speaker 1: and then we didn't.
Speaker 2: They looked us in the eyes, they shook our hands.
Speaker 2: It doesn't hold up in courts.
Speaker 1: It's not how this works. The district attorney also put
Speaker 1: out a statement saying they respect the decision, but they
Speaker 1: also say they expected it. Robes, this is what we
Speaker 1: expected to happen, and they stand by ready and waiting
Speaker 1: for whatever next thing that might happen. But stay here,
Speaker 1: if you have not heard, the centerpiece of this whole
Speaker 1: motion for them to try to get a new trial
Speaker 1: has a lot to do with the character information that
Speaker 1: we have now just learned about Austin Metcalf and Carmelo Anthony.
Speaker 1: It is ugly and a lot of it is some
Speaker 1: racist and violent stuff. Stay here, all right, we continue
Speaker 1: here on this Sunday, August twenty third, is getting worded
Speaker 1: late yesterday that Carmelo Anthony will not be getting a
Speaker 1: new trial, but they will continue with their appeals and
Speaker 1: options that they do have ropes. They kept the character
Speaker 1: information about these two young men out of the first
Speaker 1: trial because of this deal we're talking about. Holy hell,
Speaker 1: it looks I don't know what these things have canceled
Speaker 1: each other out because so much of this stuff is
Speaker 1: jaw dropping. When you're talking about seventeen year olds in rows,
Speaker 1: when you're talking about a violent confrontation that ended in violence.
Speaker 1: Excuse me, that ended in the death. The two characters
Speaker 1: here robes are the exact last two people who should
Speaker 1: have been in a confrontation.
Speaker 2: It's so true and it's so tragic when you start
Speaker 2: to see what they both brought to that moment that
Speaker 2: we were all unaware of. And yes, I don't know
Speaker 2: if it would have canceled each other. I don't know,
Speaker 2: But isn't that the point? Shouldn't a jury have been
Speaker 2: able to make that determination. That's what seems frustrating about
Speaker 2: it all. But yes, we learned. We can start with
Speaker 2: Austin metcap the victim in this. But yeah, the defense
Speaker 2: was able to provide documents that showed both Austin and
Speaker 2: his twin brother Hunter got twelve months of probation for
Speaker 2: a racist graffiti incident where yeah, the racist language they
Speaker 2: were spray painting or graffiti ing included KKK, kill all blacks,
Speaker 2: the N word, hyl hitler. I mean, so they and
Speaker 2: obviously people knew about this and what these two had done.
Speaker 2: And so yes, that would have gone absolutely in Carmelo
Speaker 2: Anthony's defense, and that he's now being confronted by this
Speaker 2: larger Austin Metcalf with his twin brother right there, who
Speaker 2: are known to have proudly spray painted horrific racist, threatening
Speaker 2: language on a wall recently.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's fine. Somebody could hear that and go, okay,
Speaker 1: stupid kid whatever. That doesn't mean he was violent, or
Speaker 1: he was angry, or even that he hates black people. Robes,
Speaker 1: and then it goes on and on and on. The
Speaker 1: defense kept presenting incidents robes over the past several years
Speaker 1: of these young men, both of whom are seventeen, both men.
Speaker 1: If you don't realize Austin Metcalf has a twin brother, Hunter,
Speaker 1: these two ropes, some of these incidents go back twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, twenty four and whatnotes, weren't they fourteen fifteen
Speaker 1: year old kids at the time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And there were documented cases of Austin bullying a
Speaker 2: black student. A teacher even sent an email reporting Austin
Speaker 2: for using racist language and bullying this black student, and
Speaker 2: then his twin brother, Hunter threatened to strike cheerleaders. Parents
Speaker 2: even reported that the girls were scared of both Austin
Speaker 2: and Hunter. That Hunter, I believe told the cheerleaders that
Speaker 2: his hands are bisexual, meaning he'll hit either gender. Another
Speaker 2: female student says the twins assaulted her in twenty twenty four. Austin,
Speaker 2: by the way, this was significant, has been suspended seven
Speaker 2: times for disciplinary issues, including cursing at teachers. He was
Speaker 2: suspended once after he discussed bringing a gun to school.
Speaker 2: Hunter has six document documented instances of telling a teacher
Speaker 2: to shut up. There's video from Austin's phone showing him
Speaker 2: laughing at a black sat student. The student tells him
Speaker 2: to stop, and he hits him in the face. Another
Speaker 2: video on his phone showing a black student eating a banana,
Speaker 2: and he's obviously making all of the imaginable racist comparisons
Speaker 2: that you can think of, and then cheering on a
Speaker 2: friend who's chasing a black kid and yelling racial slurs
Speaker 2: at him. This sounds like the most racially motivated menace
Speaker 2: and maybe even gender motivated menace that you could imagine,
Speaker 2: starting at a very young age. At your point, so
Speaker 2: to your point, so I would want to know all
Speaker 2: of these things. And it doesn't mean he deserved to die,
Speaker 2: and it doesn't mean that he deserved to be.
Speaker 1: A murder victor.
Speaker 2: But when you bring all of that energy and all
Speaker 2: of that history and all of that known violent racist
Speaker 2: behavior to a situation that I don't know. I guess
Speaker 2: the big smoking gun would be if Carmelo Anthony and
Speaker 2: his friends and the community were all very aware of
Speaker 2: this in that moment or at least some of those instances.
Speaker 1: According to the defense, Carmelo Anthony did at least on
Speaker 1: one occasion was aware of these boys from some other incident.
Speaker 1: I think it was out a basketball game. So they
Speaker 1: tried to make an argue. It wasn't that solid of one.
Speaker 1: He didn't know them or know them well, but they
Speaker 1: tried to suggest at least he's seen these young men
Speaker 1: in action, which again goes to some level of fear.
Speaker 1: It also goes to robes would that speak to a
Speaker 1: juror They go, okay, little, this smaller black kid is
Speaker 1: in there with these two guys who it's reasonable now
Speaker 1: to understand how they might react to him being in
Speaker 1: their tent exactly.
Speaker 2: And so we kind of got this feeling that they
Speaker 2: were just trying to do due diligence and following their
Speaker 2: coaches orders and keeping the tent clear, and they were
Speaker 2: just trying. Now that we know this background, what were
Speaker 2: they saying And I'm not again I am not saying
Speaker 2: he deserved to be murdered.
Speaker 1: He didn't.
Speaker 2: But escalating the situation, what was he saying? What was
Speaker 2: he doing? None of that at all seemed like it
Speaker 2: was inappropriate what Austin was doing, And so it was
Speaker 2: kind of strange seeming and very unreasonable to think that
Speaker 2: Carmelo Anthony escalated it in the way he did. None
Speaker 2: of it really made sense. But hearing all of this now,
Speaker 2: perhaps you're getting a different view. And look, you asked
Speaker 2: if a juror, if what this would mean to a juror.
Speaker 2: There were no black jurors in that jury.
Speaker 1: So might not mean eithing exactly, might not mean the thing.
Speaker 1: So with this stuff, though, on the other side, would
Speaker 1: this have been relevant to a jury to hear that
Speaker 1: Carmelo Anthony actually sent a text message that day at
Speaker 1: one am to someone saying I'm low key on the verge.
Speaker 1: That was supposed to be some suggestion that maybe he
Speaker 1: was already wired for the day. That same day, his
Speaker 1: girlfriend allegedly reported to an assistant principle of his stalking behavior.
Speaker 1: Also another text message they pointed out, in which it
Speaker 1: seems he was texting someone and it seemed to confirm
Speaker 1: that he had hit a girl in the face at
Speaker 1: some point. There are more here in which they pointed out,
Speaker 1: I will shoot up the school tomorrow than he followed
Speaker 1: up saying I'm kidding, I would never actually do that.
Speaker 1: Another text thing I like punching people. Another one saying
Speaker 1: when I get mad, I can't control myself. Text to
Speaker 1: his girlfriends saying I'm gonna get you. Quote how many
Speaker 1: bullets you want? Quote when I stab somebody, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: lick the blade off the table, off the blade.
Speaker 2: Ropes.
Speaker 1: All that stuff is not something I understand that a's fifteen, sixteen,
Speaker 1: seventeen year old kids should be saying. Why they're saying it.
Speaker 1: That's pretty damning as well, Robes. And that would have
Speaker 1: possibly had an impact on a juror jury that does
Speaker 1: not include any black people, and a jury that might
Speaker 1: think that what they think of black people and black
Speaker 1: men and young black men. All of that reads like,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, that might have hurt him even worse. And
Speaker 1: there's some suggestion Robe, you sure you want a new
Speaker 1: trial because what if he gets sixty years next time? Well,
Speaker 1: because what do you go, Ropes, This is awful Star,
Speaker 1: I'm with you, babe. It's just that the juror should
Speaker 1: have had the option exactly. But then the other part
Speaker 1: of that robes is there is context in these two
Speaker 1: things that you need maybe a black person to be
Speaker 1: in the room to understory.
Speaker 2: So I think, to me, just hearing all of this,
Speaker 2: and yes, when I stab somebody, I'm gonna lick their
Speaker 2: blood off the blade, that that's a really hard thing
Speaker 2: given what happened on the bleachers in that Texas track meet.
Speaker 2: So yes, that that to me was the most damning
Speaker 2: of them all. But I do think that one of
Speaker 2: the biggest issues, and this was this brought up. I
Speaker 2: don't remember this being a thing about there being no
Speaker 2: black jurors.
Speaker 1: In this back and forth. You don't have a right
Speaker 1: to it necessarily, right.
Speaker 2: Your peers, because I do think that is that is
Speaker 2: to me, that was the biggest travesty. I have said
Speaker 2: this a lot of folks listening here who are white,
Speaker 2: just imagine you are a white person, you killed a
Speaker 2: black person, and they're kind of being hailed a wonderful
Speaker 2: human being who was looking forward to college. So you're white,
Speaker 2: you've killed a black person, and now you're on a
Speaker 2: jury and there's not one white person on that jury.
Speaker 2: Immediately your chest titans. You feel like you can't win.
Speaker 2: Like whether or not you deserve to be punished and
Speaker 2: whether or not you deserve to be found guilty, it
Speaker 2: still feels like you're not going to get a reasonable
Speaker 2: understanding of what possibly was going through your mind or why,
Speaker 2: the why, the how all of that. The idea of
Speaker 2: that would be unthinkable to most white people. And yet
Speaker 2: that's exactly what happened to Carmelo Anthony.
Speaker 1: Just so you could take this holes and just reverse
Speaker 1: it all. This is a predominantly white area, yes, first
Speaker 1: of all, and so you have these two black kid
Speaker 1: white kid like reverse at all. Let's say this is
Speaker 1: a predominantly black area, a white kid, like you said,
Speaker 1: kills a black kid. You go in there, Robes and
Speaker 1: imagine a white defendant looking at all black jurors.
Speaker 2: A black judge.
Speaker 1: Wow, y'all, really they are really gonna get me.
Speaker 2: That's exactly what you would think.
Speaker 1: I killed one of theirs. I don't have a shot here.
Speaker 2: They don't care why, they don't care what happened leading
Speaker 2: up to it.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and what would you say in that scenario, Robes,
Speaker 1: is they if black folks came to you and said,
Speaker 1: I don't see the problem here. What are you saying
Speaker 1: black people can't be a fair and impartial jury. That's
Speaker 1: that's the arguments that we're used. This is so different.
Speaker 1: I can understand why Carmelo Anthony was scared out of
Speaker 1: his mind if this is what he was confronted with.
Speaker 1: If and we don't know because the only witness there
Speaker 1: that's not a friend of Austin Metcalfs is Carmelo Anthony
Speaker 1: and he didn't get a chance to tell his story
Speaker 1: on the stand. Why and if it's legally relevant to
Speaker 1: get him a new DRIW I don't no, but Robes,
Speaker 1: this just doesn't seem fair.
Speaker 2: Agreed to your side.
Speaker 1: By the way, I'm not not some fullhearted defense. Some
Speaker 1: of the stuff he said is just it's wild. Next
Speaker 1: step don't know when it's going to be happening, but
Speaker 1: they are taking it to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Speaker 1: I wanted to give you this update and it came
Speaker 1: late yesterday as Carmelo Anthony, not as of now getting
Speaker 1: a new trial. And with that, we appreciate you being here.
Speaker 1: I'm TJ. That's Robes. We'll talk soon.