Austin Metcalf’s father admits he ‘feels sorry’ for Karmelo Anthony after his retrial bid was shot down
Jeff Metcalf, the father of murdered Texas teenager Austin Metcalf, has said he "feels sorry" for Karmelo Anthony, the young man convicted of killing his son, after a judge rejected Anthony's bid for a retrial. Anthony, 19, was convicted of murder in June and sentenced to 35 years for stabbing 17-year-old Austin at a high school track meet in Frisco, Texas, last April. Metcalf's remarks, made in a television interview, come as the case continues to draw scrutiny over the trial's fairness.
Anthony's retrial request centred on an off-the-record agreement between prosecutors and his defence team over potentially damaging evidence concerning both teenagers, but Kaufman County Judge Michael Chitty, who came out of retirement to hear the motion, denied it on Saturday. Metcalf said he does not feel sorry for what Anthony did and believes he must be held accountable, adding that his own family effectively received "a life sentence" through losing Austin. He also said he forgave Anthony "the first day it happened" to avoid being consumed by anger, pushed back on claims the trial was unfair, and dismissed suggestions that race played a role, while noting he had not heard any expression of remorse from Anthony's family.
- Austin Metcalf's father says he "feels sorry" for killer Karmelo Anthony
- Anthony's bid for a retrial was denied by a Texas judge
- Anthony was sentenced to 35 years for murder in June
New here? Start with this
Austin Metcalf, a 17-year-old high school athlete, was fatally stabbed at a track meet in Frisco, Texas, in April last year. Karmelo Anthony, who was 18 at the time, was charged over the killing and, following a trial, was convicted of murder in June and sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Anthony's legal team subsequently sought a retrial, arguing there had been an undisclosed arrangement between prosecutors and the defence concerning evidence relating to both teenagers. That request was heard by Kaufman County Judge Michael Chitty, a retired judge brought back specifically to consider the motion, who ultimately rejected it.
The case has attracted wide attention in the United States, partly because of the circumstances of Austin's death and partly because of ongoing debate about whether the trial process was fair. Austin's father, Jeff Metcalf, has spoken publicly and repeatedly throughout the proceedings, making him a prominent voice in how the case has been reported.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who believe the conviction and sentence should stand argue that a jury heard the evidence, reached a verdict, and that undermining it now risks re-traumatising a grieving family for the sake of a procedural dispute rather than a genuine miscarriage of justice. They point out that a retired judge was specially brought in to scrutinise the fairness complaint and still found no basis to overturn the outcome, suggesting the process, including the disputed off-the-record evidentiary agreement, did not compromise the trial's integrity. On this view, accountability for a fatal stabbing matters more than reopening wounds over what may be a technical disagreement between prosecution and defence, and finality serves both justice and the victim's family.
The case against
Those sympathetic to Anthony's retrial bid argue that any off-the-record agreement between prosecutors and defence over potentially damaging evidence concerning both teenagers raises legitimate due-process concerns, since fairness in a murder trial demands full transparency about what evidence was considered, excluded, or negotiated behind closed doors. They would say that a defendant facing a 35-year sentence deserves rigorous scrutiny of any irregularity, regardless of how strong the case may appear, because the integrity of the justice system depends on defendants being able to challenge process failures, not just outcomes. On this view, scepticism about the trial's fairness is not an attempt to excuse the killing but a principled insistence that convictions, especially in a case that has drawn wider public attention, must be secured through demonstrably sound procedure.