Karmelo Anthony had intentions of licking the blood from the blade after he stabbed Austin Metcalf

Defense says Anthony feared prosecutors would use evidence against him

Former defense attorney Toby Shook testified Friday that the defense team understood the agreement to permit Anthony to testify about what happened under the tent at the Frisco track meet.

Shook said prosecutors later argued that a reference to Anthony's chess club during opening statements had opened the door to character evidence.

According to Shook, the defense had expected Anthony to testify as part of his self-defense claim and was caught off guard by the dispute.

Shook said Anthony was told that Judge John Roach could not simply enforce an unwritten agreement and would instead rule on objections based on the evidence introduced during trial.

The defense attorney testified that Anthony ultimately feared prosecutors would "find a reason to open the door" to damaging character evidence if he testified.

That decision is now central to the defense's argument that Anthony deserves a new trial.

Judge removed from remaining proceedings

The hearing follows the removal of Judge John Roach from the remaining trial-court proceedings.

Retired Judge Sid Harle determined that a reasonable outside observer could question Roach's impartiality after he publicly stated that the jury "got it right" and defended several decisions made during Anthony's trial.

Chitty is now responsible for ruling on Anthony's motion.

Prosecutor describes extraordinary security concerns

After the defense rested Friday morning, prosecutors called Wirske to testify.

He described what he characterized as an unprecedented level of threats surrounding the case, including doxxing, swatting incidents and online misinformation.

According to Wirske, threats were directed toward Anthony, the Metcalf family, attorneys, judges and potential witnesses.

Those security concerns influenced how court documents were handled. Wirske testified that certain filings were kept in paper form with Judge Roach instead of being submitted through the court's normal online system.

He denied that the arrangement created a secret file and said the measures were implemented because officials feared information could be exploited to target people involved in the case.

Wirske also defended restrictions on cameras and public access to the courtroom, arguing that security concerns justified the precautions.

Defense raises constitutional questions

Anthony's motion raises additional constitutional arguments, including claims that restrictions on courtroom access violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

The defense also argues that jury instructions improperly limited how jurors could consider Anthony's self-defense claim.

Howard testified that the defense discussed limiting some public access because of security concerns but did not formally waive Anthony's Sixth Amendment rights on the record.

The defense also argued that the lack of an overflow courtroom was connected to technology concerns rather than a specific security threat.

Self-defense remains at the center of the case

The question of whether Anthony should have testified is particularly important because his defense relied heavily on self-defense.

Criminal defense attorney Clint Broden, who was not involved in the case, told Fox News Digital that an unwritten agreement affecting whether a murder defendant can testify is highly unusual.

Broden also said that winning a self-defense case can be extremely difficult without the defendant personally explaining what he feared and why he believed deadly force was necessary.

The dispute over the agreement has therefore become a major issue in determining whether Anthony received a fair opportunity to present his defense.

Monday deadline looms

The clock is now running.

Under Texas rules, Chitty must rule on Anthony's motion by Monday. If the judge does not grant the motion by the deadline, it will be denied by operation of law and Anthony's direct appeal will proceed.

The new hearing does not itself determine Anthony's guilt or innocence. Instead, the judge must determine whether the circumstances surrounding the original trial were serious enough to justify throwing out the conviction and allowing Anthony to face a new trial.

For now, Anthony remains convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

The case has become a broader fight over evidence, self-defense, courtroom transparency and the integrity of the judicial process.

And with a Monday deadline approaching, the next decision could determine whether Karmelo Anthony's 35-year sentence remains intact or whether one of Texas' most closely watched murder cases heads back toward a new trial.

The allegations and evidence described in the hearing remain subject to the court's rulings. Anthony's conviction remains in place unless and until it is overturned.

# Trump FIRES UP IndyCar Crowd With Honorary Lap Around Washington Track Ahead of Freedom 250