May it Please the Court:  Before winning First Amendment Jury Trials I studied under Bill Marshall, who served as First Amendment Counsel to President Clinton. 

https://fedsoc.org/bio/william-marshall

I.  Transparency Must Be Maintained:

A). The Jury View.

Your Honor, I have participated in Jury Views as a Lawyer and Journalist, and found them to be of inestimable value at all times. In fact, of the two that I reference in this video:

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Fmit3NWXH/

....I believe that Her Honor is the one who actually requested the Jury View. As such, I believe that such an approach is well within your plenary and penumbral rights and privileges.  As noted in the video, including references to law firm and law review publications, this case cries out for a Jury View to define not only the spatial relationships between the people involved, but for the Jury to understand the Defendant's exact position and his concerns throughout the ordeal on that fateful day.  I will seriously doubt that most members of the Petit Jury have seen a set of bleachers up close in decades. 

B). Release of Trial Exhibits.

Hot off the Presses, 24 April 2026:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/former-texas-chief-justice-importance-court-transparency​

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8pJDT5r/

“The public needs to have confidence in the rule of law and that it’s applied objectively without regard to financial status or political affiliation or any other factor the public might think influences how a case comes out…..”
 
“….And that got me thinking, why is it just for the legal profession? It’s also for journalists and citizens and interest groups and political organizations and everything else. I started on a mission to expand access.”
 
-Hon. Wallace Jefferson
 
Against this backdrop, Hon. John Roach has taken drastic measures to preserve the Integrity of his Courtroom on the front end of the Karmelo Anthony case. These measures stand in direct conflict of the desires expressed in this interview. As such, Judge Roach must take all measures possible to ensure the legal profession and the public of Transparency.

First, there are issues of Vagueness and Overbreadth in the Standing Order, most specifically as to admonitions on "facial expressions."

https://theconversation.com/emotion-reading-tech-fails-the-racial-bias-test-108404

To examine the bias in the facial recognition systems that analyze people’s emotions, I used a data set of 400 NBA player photos from the 2016 to 2017 season, because players are similar in their clothing, athleticism, age and gender. Also, since these are professional portraits, the players look at the camera in the picture.

I ran the images through two well-known types of emotional recognition software. Both assigned black players more negative emotional scores on average, no matter how much they smiled.

                                                                                                                                                      **********

Studies indicate that Black individuals may exhibit higher intensity in facial expressions of emotion, particularly positive emotions like smiles (AU6 and AU12), compared to other groups. While sometimes rooted in cultural communication styles, these expressions are often misinterpreted or viewed through biased lenses, where Black faces may be perceived as more intensely emotional or angry, even when smiling. Moreover, without access to post-Trial audio the very "journalists and citizens and interest groups" cited by Judge Jefferson cannot interpret witnesses vocal tone, pauses, inflection, vocal clicks or anything that could pertain to the sense of witness credibility. This could potentially open a door to Constitutional challenge before, during or after Trial on Prior Restraint as noted below in Star-Telegram, involving something as sensitive as a rape victim's name.  And without cameras, courtroom artists or audio how could anyone challenge a finding by the Court that their "facial expression" was beyond the pale.

That having been said we turn now to the back end, and the compelling governmental interest in allowing the public the ability to both praise and to scrutinize the actions of law enforcement.

Trial courts are “without power to prohibit the publication of testimony presented during the trial of a criminal case.”  Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Walker, 834 S.W.2d 54, 57 (Tex. 1992) (citing Ex parte Foster, 71 S.W. 593 (Tex. Crim App. 1903)).

OPINION

GONZALEZ, Justice.

The issue before us in this mandamus proceeding is whether a trial court may issue a protective order to prohibit a newspaper from publishing information already disclosed in open court and made part of a trial court's public record. We hold that the trial court's protective order violates article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution, because it unreasonably restricts expression by preventing the dissemination of public information. This constitutes a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court for which there is no adequate remedy at law. We thus conditionally grant the writ and order the trial court to dissolve the protective order.

....while this Court is not refusing access nor limiting publication per se, at this point it has refused any audio recordings, which we contend could be violative of the Spirit and Law of Star-Telegram, and the official audio must be released.

As such, according to the bulk of Decisional Law, all Trial Exhibits used must be available to the public one (1) week after Trial.

We are aware of an exception to TRCP 76A in Dallas Morning News v. Fifth Court of Appeals 842 SW 2d 655 (1992), but that case also involved private trade secrets not involved in this case, which is destined to witness substantial examination of public police activity; in short the cases are chalk and cheese.

I have witnessed people online attacking Due Process/Karmelo Anthony supporters for lying about his weight, when the Arrest Report had it wrong, ab initio. There are allegations and concerns about other purported Court documents as well, which I am investigating, and all of this needs the complete Transparency that only a Release of Files, including Subpoenas (redacted as necessary) will provide.

In sum, we hope for a Jury View in the Trial, as well as Immediate Access to Trial Exhibits at the conclusion of this case:

#KarmeloAnthony #AustinMetcalf #HunterMetcalf 

 

II.  Video from the Frisco Kuykendall Stabbing Tragedy Must be Made Public.

* There are many videos of school assaults in Texas on the Internet while cases are pending.

* After initially lying to Tiffney Billions about the presence of any video of the tragedy, Frisco ISD deliberately obfuscated the facts of the video that clearly show four boys surrounding Karmelo Anthony from an audience participant who may have been part of a setup on Karmelo Anthony. 

* In Bell v. State, Tex. Crim. App., 582 S.W.2d 800 (1979) the court confronted extensive and graphic pretrial coverage, including photographs of the defendant in custody; applying Irvin, Rideau, Estes, and Sheppard, it held there was no showing that publicity produced community prejudice so great as to prevent a fair trial, and no abuse of discretion in denying a venue change. BeTex. Crim. App., 582 S.W.2d 800.

* Henley v. State Tex. Crim. App., 576 S.W.2d 66 (1979) is explicit that the mere fact many venire members have heard of the case or formed an opinion is not enough; the key question is whether an impartial jury was ultimately seated, and the court relies heavily on voir dire to answer that.

Significantly, the Defendant in this case is not asking for the video to be withheld.

 

The next Dick Tracy I am not. But I am well-respected by LE, one example being my chat on behalf of a young white man (and community) that was abused by a bad apple: This is George McNeill, retired as Chief of Somerset, MA. He writes National policy now. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZNB3tddNy8&t