Blood-Licking Texts Rock Retrial

At a retrial hearing, a Texas prosecutor read a text where Karmelo Anthony wrote he would “lick their blood off the blade,” raising sharp questions about evidence the jury never saw.

Story Snapshot

Prosecutor says Anthony texted about stabbing and “licking blood off the blade” before the killing.
State links texts to claims of stalking and a knife threat the same morning, building intent.
A reported “handshake deal” kept cell phone content from the original jury, now under scrutiny.
Defense maintains self-defense, citing witness accounts that contact started the fight.

What Prosecutors Put On The Record

On August 20, 2026, Collin County prosecutors told a new judge that Anthony had sent violent texts before the stabbing. Assistant District Attorney Bill Wirskye read a line that said, “When I stab somebody I’m gonna lick their blood off the blade.” He also pointed to a message saying, “I’m low key on the verge.” The state argued these texts fit a pattern that Anthony was “obsessed with fights, guns, and knives,” and tied them to that day’s events.

Prosecutors also told the court that Anthony’s ex-girlfriend reported stalking and a knife threat that same morning. They said this report lined up with his messages and mindset before the fatal encounter. Prosecutors showed the knife during the earlier trial, underscoring the connection between the texts and the weapon. Together, they argued, this paints a picture of intent rather than a split-second reaction during a scuffle at the track meet.

Why The Evidence Is Surfacing Now

Local reporting says a “gentleman’s agreement” between sides kept the phone evidence out of the original trial. That off-the-record deal now sits at the center of the retrial fight. The defense says the quiet arrangement narrowed what jurors heard, while the state now treats the texts as key proof that jurors missed. The new judge must decide how much of this digital record comes in if a retrial moves forward.

The dispute adds to public distrust that many Americans feel toward the system. People on the right and left worry that court outcomes can hinge on backroom deals instead of open evidence. When a major case turns on what jurors did not see, it feeds a belief that the process serves insiders first. Whether one backs the state or the defense here, the “handshake” story hits that nerve hard.

What The Defense Says About The Fight

Anthony’s lawyers continue to argue self-defense. They point to statements after the stabbing where Anthony said, “He put his hands on me.” A teammate reportedly testified that Austin Metcalf pushed Anthony first. Defense lawyers say the contact started fast, the group turned on Anthony, and he reacted in a split second. That account challenges the state’s effort to use the texts as proof of a planned attack.

"Consider the motion" doesn't mean the new trial has moved a step closer. Basically a new judge was slotted for any post conviction matters.

A motion for new trial isn't guaranteed a hearing, and in Texas are rarely granted. If nothing is scheduled 75 days after sentencing date,… https://t.co/9l69VmE4Q2 pic.twitter.com/seylJ74AaY

— Adam Scott (@chefcascottccc) August 20, 2026

Even with the disturbing language in the texts, the exact timing and context remain key. The reporting does not show the full message threads or confirm who received them and when. Without that timeline, the texts show mindset but do not by themselves settle who started the fight. Courts often allow such messages if they are authenticated and closely tied to the event, but judges can still limit them if unfairly prejudicial.

How To Read The Stakes

This hearing is about more than one teen and one tragic death. It is about what evidence our courts let juries weigh and when. Digital messages can reveal threats and plans. They can also reflect bravado, jokes, or heat-of-the-moment talk. The law asks whether the messages are authentic, relevant, and more helpful than harmful. That careful balance should be made in the open, not through private deals.

Families want truth. Communities want safety and fairness. Citizens want courts that show their work. If the texts are real, relevant, and close in time, a judge may let jurors hear them. If they are distant or unclear, a judge may keep them out. Either way, the process should be transparent. Sunlight makes verdicts stronger and earns trust across our political divides.