A Texas judge is set to consider whether Karmelo Anthony should receive a new trial after the 19-year-old was convicted of murder in the fatal stabbing of 17-year-old high school athlete Austin Metcalf.

The hearing follows a significant legal development for Anthony. On Wednesday, the judge who oversaw his original trial was removed from the case after Anthony’s defense team argued that his conduct raised concerns about impartiality. Judge Michael Chitty was subsequently assigned to review the defense’s request for a new trial.

Anthony was convicted earlier this summer and received a 35-year prison sentence. He appeared at Wednesday’s hearing wearing a green prison uniform, while members of both the Anthony and Metcalf families were present. Supporters of Anthony gathered outside the Collin County Courthouse and celebrated the decision to remove the original trial judge from further involvement in the case.

The defense had previously sought the removal of District Judge John Roach. Among the issues cited by Anthony’s lawyers was a television interview conducted after the trial, during which Roach was asked whether the jury had reached the correct verdict. The judge responded that he believed the jurors had made the right decision and stood by their conclusion.

Anthony’s lawyers now argue that several aspects of the original proceedings justify a new trial. They have raised concerns about strict courtroom procedures as well as jury instructions that they believe may have affected the outcome. The defense has also maintained that Anthony’s decision not to testify was connected to a disagreement with prosecutors concerning an agreement about which events surrounding the stabbing would be presented to the jury.

The original case centered on an altercation at a high school track competition in April 2025. Anthony was attending the event when he sat beneath a tent belonging to Memorial High School’s team. According to testimony presented at trial, Metcalf and other students repeatedly asked Anthony to leave the area.

What began as a disagreement eventually became a confrontation. Prosecutors argued that Anthony was responsible for escalating the encounter and characterized him as the aggressor. Witnesses said that Anthony reached into a bag during the confrontation and warned Metcalf, according to a police report, to touch him and see what would happen.

Metcalf then pushed Anthony, witnesses testified. Anthony subsequently pulled out a knife and stabbed Metcalf in the chest. The teenager later died from his injuries.

During the trial, Anthony’s defense relied in part on a claim of self-defense. However, the jury rejected that argument and found him guilty. Prosecutors maintained that Anthony initiated or intensified the confrontation, while the defense challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of what happened immediately before the stabbing.

The case attracted widespread national attention, extending well beyond the courtroom. Social media discussions frequently framed the killing in racial terms because Anthony is Black and Metcalf was white. However, attorneys representing both sides told jurors that race was not the cause of the confrontation or the tragedy.

The controversy surrounding the case also affected the families involved. As public interest grew, relatives of both Anthony and Metcalf reported being subjected to harassment. Online commentary surrounding the incident became increasingly intense, adding another layer of pressure to an already highly publicized legal battle.

The dispute over Judge Roach’s involvement became particularly important during Wednesday’s hearing. Anthony’s attorneys highlighted remarks he made during a post-trial television interview. When asked whether the jury had “got it right,” Roach answered affirmatively and further stated that the jurors had reached the correct conclusion.

The defense argued that such comments could create an appearance that the judge had already formed a firm opinion about Anthony’s guilt. The judge had also publicly defended several of his courtroom policies and discussed the large volume of online commentary surrounding the case.

With Roach now removed, Judge Michael Chitty will determine whether Anthony’s arguments are sufficient to warrant another trial. Granting a new trial would not necessarily mean that Anthony has been cleared of the killing. Instead, it would allow the case to return to court for another proceeding in which the defense and prosecution would once again present their arguments.

For now, Anthony remains imprisoned under his 35-year sentence. The upcoming hearing represents another important stage in his legal challenge and could determine whether his murder conviction remains in place or whether he will receive an opportunity to have the case tried again.

The dispute has continued to draw attention because of the competing interpretations of the confrontation that led to Metcalf’s death. Prosecutors have portrayed Anthony as the aggressor, while his defense has challenged aspects of the prosecution’s case and argued that the original trial contained procedural problems.

As the new judge reviews the defense motion, the central question will be whether the issues raised by Anthony’s attorneys were serious enough to undermine the fairness or reliability of the original trial. The court’s decision could therefore have a major impact on the next phase of the case and on Anthony’s prospects for challenging his conviction.