Judge defends barring cameras from Karmelo Anthony murder trial, says it was 'an easy decision'

Judge Defends Camera Ban in Texas Murder Trial

Judge John Roach of the 296th District Court in Collin County, Texas, has defended the decision to keep cameras and livestreaming out of the courtroom during the trial of Karmelo Anthony, who was convicted of murdering 17‑year‑old Austin Metcalf during a high‑school track meet in Frisco.

In a recent interview with WFAA, Roach explained that his priority in every case is to provide a fair trial for both the defendant and the prosecution. “My primary goal in every case is to make sure the defendant and the prosecution get a fair trial. Period,” he said. He added, “Yes, it was an easy decision,” acknowledging that the ruling had drawn criticism from reporters and the public who wanted more transparency.

Roach said the ban was intended to prevent outside commentary from influencing the proceedings or the jury. “I had to balance between the media’s right to know and be able to know what’s going on, which I think is extraordinarily important. I think the public had access to the courtroom and see what is going on,” he explained. He further noted that, “As long as I follow the law, I sleep well at night.”

The jury, seated in Collin County, found Anthony guilty of murder and on Tuesday sentenced him to 35 years in prison. Roach said he agreed with the verdict, stating, “Yes, they did because they were picked based upon the law, they listened to the facts, it happened in this courtroom, and they got a verdict.”

He also addressed rumors of a personal connection with the Metcalf family. “I wouldn’t know Mr. Metcalf prior to this trial if he walked up to me and said ‘hello,’” Roach said. “I know I made people mad, but I’m not here to make them happy either.”

When asked to describe the defendant, Roach said, “He seems like a nice young man who committed a crime and he understands today more than any day before the consequences of committing a crime like he did.”

The case has attracted national attention, not only for the tragic death of a teenage athlete but also for its broader implications regarding courtroom transparency and jury integrity. While the ban on cameras remains in effect, observers continue to debate the balance between public access and the right to an impartial trial.