Season 6 Episode 12: Why Karmelo Anthony’s Appeal was DENIED
Sep 4, 2026 · 7 min · 6 segments
We break down the Karmelo Anthony appeal arguments, why the appeal was denied and his next steps!
Sep 4, 2026 · 7 min · 6 segments
We break down the Karmelo Anthony appeal arguments, why the appeal was denied and his next steps!
So before we get to why I think the motion for new trial was denied, let's talk about what the motion for new trial had in it.
The first part focused on the court improperly restricting public access to the actual trial.
And why is this important? They talked about how the seating was limited, They required people to get up before dawn to access the trial.
And so the motion argues that those restrictions amounted to an unconstitutional courtroom closure without the findings required under Supreme Court precedent.
And so that was their first argument, that the public did not really have access to this trial.
The restricted public access argument actually poured into a secondary argument they had about the trial judge, who, of course, was recused from these particular proceedings about the motion for retrial.
But at the time, he did a media interview saying that it was correct to restrict the public from this trial.
So they said that just further supports that unconstitutional restriction of public access happened here, even with the trial judge agreeing with it and agreeing to restrict the public from the court without, again, following any sort of precedent.
The second part of their argument focused on how the trial was improperly If you recall, they even had court on Saturday for this trial, which is almost unheard of.
And it just didn't give the defense a lot of time, you know, over the weekend to really do any sort of proper follow up defense
And it talked about this gentleman's agreement allegedly that was left off the record.
And it was between allegedly the prosecutors and Carmelo's defense attorneys that essentially said that they would keep all prior bad acts out and any sort of character evidence out.
When it was revealed that Carmelo Anthony would use self-defense in his trial, meaning he would have to take the stand and speak, the prosecutors at the last minute went against their agreement and said, well, what we talked about is not going to apply to Carmelo if he takes the stand.
and so meaning they would talk about any power bad acts and they would talk about any sort of character evidence against him and so he literally had 10 minutes to decide if he was going to take that risk and take the stand anyway and obviously he decided not to this went into the other part of their argument which talked about how because he could not take the stand in his defense without them opening up this can of worms against him that the lack of his testimony essentially ensured that he would get a guilty verdict because this child was all about self-defense and so in this case he really needed to take the stand to explain what happened i just want to talk briefly about some of the things that were revealed so In this motion for new trial, some of the stuff that they said that they would leave off the record were text messages talking about the KKK and using the N-word and them being suspended and using school slurs and putting graffiti using slurs.
and even gun threat texts where they were suspended after another student texted about them potentially bringing a gun to school.
So before we get to why I think the motion for new trial was denied, let's talk about what the motion for new trial had in it.
The first part focused on the court improperly restricting public access to the actual trial.
And why is this important? They talked about how the seating was limited, They required people to get up before dawn to access the trial.
And so the motion argues that those restrictions amounted to an unconstitutional courtroom closure without the findings required under Supreme Court precedent.
And so that was their first argument, that the public did not really have access to this trial.
The restricted public access argument actually poured into a secondary argument they had about the trial judge, who, of course, was recused from these particular proceedings about the motion for retrial.
But at the time, he did a media interview saying that it was correct to restrict the public from this trial.
So they said that just further supports that unconstitutional restriction of public access happened here, even with the trial judge agreeing with it and agreeing to restrict the public from the court without, again, following any sort of precedent.
The second part of their argument focused on how the trial was improperly If you recall, they even had court on Saturday for this trial, which is almost unheard of.
And it just didn't give the defense a lot of time, you know, over the weekend to really do any sort of proper follow up defense
And it talked about this gentleman's agreement allegedly that was left off the record.
And it was between allegedly the prosecutors and Carmelo's defense attorneys that essentially said that they would keep all prior bad acts out and any sort of character evidence out.
When it was revealed that Carmelo Anthony would use self-defense in his trial, meaning he would have to take the stand and speak, the prosecutors at the last minute went against their agreement and said, well, what we talked about is not going to apply to Carmelo if he takes the stand.
and so meaning they would talk about any power bad acts and they would talk about any sort of character evidence against him and so he literally had 10 minutes to decide if he was going to take that risk and take the stand anyway and obviously he decided not to this went into the other part of their argument which talked about how because he could not take the stand in his defense without them opening up this can of worms against him that the lack of his testimony essentially ensured that he would get a guilty verdict because this child was all about self-defense and so in this case he really needed to take the stand to explain what happened i just want to talk briefly about some of the things that were revealed so In this motion for new trial, some of the stuff that they said that they would leave off the record were text messages talking about the KKK and using the N-word and them being suspended and using school slurs and putting graffiti using slurs.
and even gun threat texts where they were suspended after another student texted about them potentially bringing a gun to school.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
