Knife Texts Explode Retrial — Jury Never Saw

At a retrial hearing, a Texas prosecutor read a teen’s text about “lick[ing] their blood off the blade,” raising fresh alarms about evidence the jury never heard.

Story Snapshot

Prosecutor highlighted texts suggesting violent intent, including a line about licking blood off a blade.
State tied the messages to claims of a broader fixation with knives and fights.
Defense maintains Karmelo Anthony acted in self-defense during a sudden confrontation.
Reports describe a past “handshake deal” that kept cellphone evidence from jurors.

What Prosecutors Revealed in Court

On August 20, 2026, in a Collin County retrial hearing, a prosecutor read a text he said came from Karmelo Anthony: “When I stab somebody I’m gonna lick their blood off the blade.” He also cited a message saying, “I’m low key on the verge.” The state argued these messages showed violent intent on the day of the fatal stabbing of Austin Metcalf at a 2025 track meet. Local coverage tied both quotes to the hearing presentation.

The prosecutor also described Anthony as “obsessed with fights, guns, and knives.” He linked that claim to the text messages and to a reported incident with an ex-girlfriend the same morning. According to hearing reports, the ex said Anthony stalked her and threatened her with a knife earlier that day. These details came through courtroom summaries rather than exhibits, leaving timing and full context of the texts unclear in public reporting.

Why This Evidence Matters Now

Media reports say jurors in the original trial did not see the cellphone contents because of an off-the-record “gentleman’s agreement.” That deal, described in affidavits and news coverage, narrowed what the jury heard about Anthony’s prior messages and behavior. The state now treats the texts as important omitted evidence in seeking to defend the conviction against a push for a new trial. Coverage outlined the dispute over what should have come in at trial.

The physical evidence shown at trial included the knife alleged to have been used. That connection gives the texts about stabbing a more direct link to the act itself. Still, the strength of such messages in court often turns on when they were sent, to whom, and why. Without the full phone record in public view, the complete timing and context remain limited in the current reporting.

The Defense Position and Unanswered Questions

Anthony’s lawyers have long argued he acted in self-defense. Reporting from the trial and its aftermath notes testimony that a shove occurred before the stabbing, and body camera audio captured Anthony saying, “He put his hands on me.” The defense position is that he faced a sudden confrontation at the track meet and made a split-second choice, not a planned attack. That account continues to anchor the request for a new trial.

"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

Key gaps remain in the public record. The hearing reports do not publish the full text threads or exact timestamps. The identity of recipients is not fully detailed. The ex-girlfriend’s account appears through the prosecutor’s summary rather than a public statement or document. Those limits do not erase the state’s claims, but they affect how readers weigh what the texts prove about intent versus mood or bravado before the fight.

The Bigger Picture: Evidence, Process, and Trust

This fight reflects a larger concern seen in many cases: powerful digital messages can sway juries, yet their true value depends on timing, authorship, and meaning. Courts often require clear foundations for electronic messages, and judges weigh their use for intent against the risk of unfair prejudice. When process disputes arise—like a “handshake deal”—public trust suffers. People across the spectrum see a system that withholds key facts or introduces them too late.