On June 19, 2026, a Collin County judge released photographs, police body-camera footage and other exhibits from the murder trial of Karmelo Anthony, who had been convicted June 9 of killing Austin Metcalf. The release let the public examine more of the material the jury had already considered.

Why It Matters

Public access to evidence matters, but a newly published file is not necessarily new trial evidence. The release did not reopen the case or reverse the guilty verdict. Readers also need warnings about sensitive materials involving a teenager’s death.

Go Deeper | The Original Record

Anthony was sentenced to 35 years after a jury convicted him of murder in the April 2025 stabbing at a Frisco track meet. During trial, prosecutors and defense lawyers used videos, witnesses, police evidence and courtroom exhibits to explain their different accounts.

FOX 4 reported that body-camera footage released June 19 showed Anthony speaking with officers after the stabbing. He described being touched during the confrontation and acknowledged that he had stabbed Austin. Those are recorded statements, not a complete video of the stabbing.

The county release also included other photographs, video and audio material. Some footage and images were disturbing or graphic. This article links to the official source index and independent reporting without embedding autopsy images, the fatal injury or identifying material involving minors.

The video has to be interpreted with care. A person may describe what they believed or felt, but a recording of a statement does not prove every detail of the reported events. The trial jury heard a broader set of evidence and had already returned its verdict.

After the later July 24 update, Collin County’s official record index listed redacted transcript volumes 4 through 8 and courtroom orders in addition to exhibits. A source ledger should distinguish the June exhibit release from the later public transcript listing.

Release is not the same as discovery of new evidence

A trial exhibit may become publicly downloadable after the jury has already considered it. The date a court posts an item online tells us when that access became available, not when investigators originally obtained it or when jurors first saw it. That is why the June 19 release needs its own entry in the chronology instead of being called a new forensic discovery. Readers should be able to trace the underlying exhibit and the court’s publication decision separately.

Why the source and context matter

A police body-camera clip captures what its camera and microphone recorded during a limited period. A person’s statements on the video may reflect their account, but the recording cannot show events outside its frame or confirm every subjective claim. When footage is shortened for television or social media, the original source and timestamps are especially important. The trial jury also heard witnesses and other exhibits, so a later clip should not be used to rewrite the verdict in isolation.

Files involving the death of a minor may contain distressing material. A source-led article can identify the court’s official index, summarize relevant content and explain the reporting limit without reproducing images of an injury or publishing personal details about other students.

What Happens Next

The separate direct appeal and post-trial motions continued. Use original dated courtroom records for later rulings, and do not claim that releasing an exhibit created a new legal finding.