Karmelo Anthony's Lawyer Says He Feels Remorse for Austin Metcalf's Death

Actions taken in a split second can echo for a lifetime — and according to trial lawyer Mike Howard, Karmelo Anthony is living with that weight. Just days after being sentenced to 35 years in prison for the fatal stabbing of Austin Metcalf during a Texas high school track meet in April 2025, Anthony’s former legal representative is offering a window into what he believes his client is actually feeling beneath the courtroom silence.

Howard was careful in his wording, acknowledging the challenge of gauging Anthony’s true emotional state when Anthony chose not to testify in his own defense. But the lawyer told TMZ he believes Anthony viewed the stabbing as a split-second act of self-defense in the chaos of that moment — and that he’s carried genuine remorse for Austin Metcalf, his father Hunter Metcalf, and the entire family ever since. It’s worth noting that Anthony himself hasn’t publicly expressed remorse, though that’s hardly unusual; criminal defendants are routinely advised by counsel to keep silent while legal matters remain active.

The silence, however strategic, creates a gap between what a lawyer claims his client feels privately and what the world actually hears. Howard wouldn’t disclose whether he advised Anthony to skip testifying — attorney-client privilege shields that conversation — but he made clear that the final call was Anthony’s alone. A lawyer can advise; the defendant decides. That Karmelo Anthony chose not to take the stand speaks volumes, even if we can’t know exactly what it means.

The case has taken an uglier turn since a judge lifted the gag order. Austin Metcalf’s father, Jeff, has begun speaking publicly and reportedly used a racist nickname when discussing Karmelo Anthony — a detail that underscores how raw this case remains and how far removed we are from any genuine resolution or healing. Anthony is now searching for new representation to pursue an appeal, while Howard’s role in the case has ended.

What lingers is the fundamental tension of criminal justice: How do we measure remorse when silence is often the safest strategy? And what does it mean when a lawyer has to interpret his client’s conscience for the public because the client can’t or won’t speak for himself?