What is it with law professors that they come up with the worst takes on X? And then they end up pumping out attorneys like Jasmine Crockett. W. Burlette Carter claims that convicted murderer Karmelo Anthony is entitled to a new trial because he is entitled to a jury of his peers. What would be a jury of his peers? Black teens who provoke and then stab white teens to death?
I have not yet read the full trial transcript. But so far, I do know this. Karmelo Anthony was entitled to a jury of his peers. He did not get that. On that ground alone, he is entitled to a new trial. Minorities are not interchangeable. The prosecutor’s reported proffered…
— W. Burlette Carter (@ProfWBCarter) June 12, 2026
She goes on and on, adding that Anthony's court-appointed lawyer (because he claimed he was indigent after raising $600,000 on GiveSendGo) "also seemed unable to appreciate and counter the impact of racial overtones in that case. Those overtones are clear even on Twitter commentary as folks seek to paint Metcalf as having no culpability in what happened and Karmelo as a complete monster."
Has she read any of the Twitter commentary? They want to dig up Metcalf and stab him again. Maybe Anthony is not a "complete monster," but he has no impulse control and is guilty of murder.
Some people say law professors aren’t always especially persuasive, but this is the most powerful argument against affirmative action that I have ever seen. https://t.co/RLEbunbFaR
— Daniel Friedman (@DanFriedman81) June 13, 2026
His peers are Americans subject to the same laws. Not people of a specific race. That's not how it works.
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) June 12, 2026
How are you a professor of law? Holy cow. https://t.co/62sTwaJled
Recommended
Obviously, there's no constitutional right to a same-race jury. Jurors have a constitutional right not to be struck on the basis of race.
— Andrew Fleischman (@ASFleischman) June 13, 2026
Anthony raised a Batson challenge on that basis. But a judge already said the strikes were not pretextual, and that gets deference. https://t.co/IS6FUpDGkI
Every sentence of this post is a fucking embarrassment. Shame on you.
— J.R. Holmsted (@JHolmsted) June 12, 2026
You're an idiot.
— JWF (@JammieWF) June 12, 2026
🚨 I have not yet read the full trial transcript. But so far, I do know this. Karmelo Anthony was entitled to a jury of his peers.🚨
— Merv (@sun_pwrd) June 12, 2026
This is where you should have stopped.
- Didn’t read the whole thing
- Doesn’t understand the legal meaning of “peer”
Loud and wrong
You are basically invalidating the whole premise of jury trials and equal protection under the law if you claim you need to have someone of your particular skin color on the jury.
— ZalinskySilverworks (@ZalinskyS) June 12, 2026
You know he actually confessed to the murder when he was arrested. Do you not understand justice.
— Vernon Gibson (@VGibson88488) June 12, 2026
The jury was mostly minorities from what I understand . You all would be silent if Karmelo was a white kid.
You went to Harvard Law and actually believed that a jury of your peers meant your jury is composed of members of your race and age. https://t.co/4SbHtsQvbF
— Lucky Teter (@TheMagaHulk) June 13, 2026
"I'm ignorant about the case. So I'll opine based on my skin color, just as all the prospective black jurors did"
— Calvin Dodge (@caldodge) June 12, 2026
Yes, he did. His peers are American citizens. That’s who he killed and that’s who judged him for it. All the rest of your extremely looooong post means nothing.
— JayJay McMaster, CD (@tantrumblue1) June 13, 2026
Give it a rest.
— Zachary Werrell, Esq. (@zkwerrell) June 12, 2026
The only reason you wanted a black person on there was so they would refuse to do their duty as a juror and fairly apply the facts to the law to hang the jury.
And if they did that, the next jury would convict, because he’s clearly guilty of murder.
Meanwhile, over on CBS News Los Angeles, they found it "very eyebrow-raising" that three black jurors were struck.
CBS Los Angeles spreads suspicion about the striking of black jurors in the Karmelo Anthony case: "How is that even legal in 2026?"
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) June 13, 2026
"It's very eyebrow-raising" pic.twitter.com/yzvsR0WHYK
Picking jurors based on race is illegal under the 14th amendment.
— Molly Pitcher (@AmericanMama) June 13, 2026
Cry more losers.
Did any of these idiots hear the expelled jurors’ blatant racist disregard for impartial justice ?
— Steve (@Planter5657) June 13, 2026
I think stabbing an unarmed student in the heart at a school sporting event is "very eyebrow-raising"
— Observe, Orient, Decide, Act (@Skoorbekim) June 13, 2026
You forgot to mention the potential black jurors who claimed they couldn’t be impartial. Odd they didn’t mention that, seems important.
— Uncle BS (@UncleBS1776) June 13, 2026
"How is that even legal in 2026?"
Morons.
***