The family of convicted Texas teen Karmelo Anthony is asking the public for another $250,000 to fund his appeal after a judge refused to grant him a new trial.
As reported by The Post Millennial, a GiveSendGo campaign has so far collected about $27,000 toward the effort, a fraction of what will be needed for a lengthy appellate fight. Anthony is serving a 35-year sentence after a jury found him guilty in the fatal stabbing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a 2025 track meet in Frisco.
According to the New York Post, a family spokesperson explained the renewed fundraising push by saying, We understand that the pursuit of justice through the appellate system requires tremendous resources. This is why the legal fund has been established. Anthonys relatives had earlier raised more than $600,000 through a separate fundraiser that was removed following his conviction, prompting scrutiny over how such large sums were used.
GiveSendGo later clarified that the original campaign was created to support pre-trial needs, and those funds were disbursed over the past year for lawful purposes including legal defense and family relocation. Despite that substantial backing, Anthony filed for court-appointed counsel just days after sentencing, claiming he could not afford a lawyer for his appeal.
In his filing, Anthony described himself as a penniless, destitute, and indigent person, too poor to employ counsel to represent him, even after hundreds of thousands of dollars had already been raised on his behalf. His motion for a new trial was rejected last month, after his new legal team argued that he had been denied a fair proceeding.
Defense attorneys challenged an agreement between the original defense and prosecutors that barred both sides from introducing certain character evidence about Anthony and Metcalf. The excluded material reportedly included allegations that Metcalf had previously been accused of racist behavior, as well as allegations concerning Anthonys history of stalking his ex-girlfriend and an obsession with knives and guns, raising ongoing questions about what jurors were allowed to hear in a case that has already consumed significant public and private resources.
Login