$700K For WHAT?

A Texas jury took just three hours to convict Karmelo Anthony of first-degree murder — but over $700,000 had already been raised to defend him, and a black conservative commentator is now asking the uncomfortable question: was that money raised to defend a killer?

Story Snapshot

A Collin County jury found Karmelo Anthony, 19, guilty of first-degree murder in the 2025 stabbing death of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a Frisco, Texas, high school track meet.
Anthony was sentenced to 35 years in prison. He is appealing the conviction.
Multiple witnesses testified that Anthony refused to leave, issued threats, and stabbed Metcalf in response to a shove — a response legal analysts called wildly disproportionate.
More than $700,000 was publicly raised for Anthony’s defense, sparking a fierce debate about whether race drove the fundraising.

A Stabbing at a High School Track Meet

On April 2, 2025, 17-year-old Austin Metcalf was stabbed and killed at a high school track meet at Kuykendall Stadium in Frisco, Texas. Witnesses told police that Karmelo Anthony, also 17 at the time, entered a rival school’s tent during a rain delay. When asked to leave, he refused. As the argument grew, Anthony reached into his bag and told Metcalf, “Touch me and see what happens.” When Metcalf shoved him, Anthony pulled out a folding knife and drove it into Metcalf’s chest. Anthony then ran. ^[7]

A medical examiner testified that the stab wound was two inches long, went through Metcalf’s heart wall, and was not survivable. The cause of death was ruled a homicide — meaning it resulted from the intentional actions of another person. The state called 21 witnesses before resting its case. ^[11]

What the Jury Heard

Prosecutors told jurors that surveillance footage showed a one-on-one confrontation — not a mob surrounding Anthony. Witnesses testified that no one ganged up on him, that no serious fight broke out before the stabbing, and that multiple people identified Anthony as the aggressor. One witness said Anthony declared, “If you want to move me, you’re going to have to do it yourselves,” before the situation turned deadly. ^[2] ^[9]

The defense argued Anthony acted in self-defense after being physically assaulted first. Defense attorney Mike Howard said Anthony told Metcalf, “As long as you don’t touch me, we’re cool,” and that Anthony acted out of fear. ^[10] However, even Texas self-defense law requires a response to be reasonable and proportionate to the threat. Legal analysts noted that responding to a shove with a knife to the chest does not meet that standard. ^[12]

Guilty — and the Jury Rejected Every Defense Argument

After seven days of trial, the jury deliberated for roughly three hours and returned a guilty verdict on first-degree murder. They rejected the lesser charge of manslaughter. They also rejected the defense’s “sudden passion” argument at sentencing — a finding that would have capped Anthony’s punishment at 20 years. Instead, they sentenced him to 35 years, with parole eligibility after serving half. ^[7] Anthony has since filed an appeal. ^[3]

Yes, reports confirm Karmelo Anthony was granted court-appointed counsel (public defender) after his family petitioned for indigent status and claimed financial hardship — despite raising ~$612k via GiveSendGo crowdfunding explicitly for legal defense, security, and relocation.…

— Grok (@grok) June 10, 2026

First Assistant District Attorney Bill Wirskye told the jury during closing arguments: “This case has nothing to do with race. This case has nothing to do with self-defense. This was an unprovoked, unjustified murder. It is senseless.” He argued Anthony provoked the confrontation, questioned why he didn’t simply walk away, and called using a knife against a shove wildly disproportionate. The jury agreed. ^[7]

$700,000 Raised — and a Black Conservative Pushes Back

While the trial played out in court, more than $700,000 was raised publicly to support Anthony’s defense. The fundraising drew national attention and sparked a sharp debate. Black conservative commentators pushed back hard, arguing the money was raised based on racial loyalty — not on the facts of the case. The trial record, they say, tells a different story: witnesses placed Anthony as the aggressor, and the jury agreed after hearing all the evidence. ^[1] ^[6]

It is worth being clear: the sources available do not provide direct evidence of why individual donors gave money. People may have supported Anthony because they believed in his innocence, distrusted the prosecution, or felt racial solidarity. All of those motivations likely existed among different donors. But the jury — after hearing sworn testimony, reviewing surveillance video, and weighing the self-defense claim — rejected every argument offered in Anthony’s defense. The facts, as the court found them, did not support the narrative that drove the fundraising. ^[2] ^[7]