Did Karmelo Anthony Receive a Fair Trial? An Attorney Breaks Down the Evidentiary Hearing

Steph sits down with MD to break down the Karmelo Anthony evidentiary hearing and what Judge Chitty was actually being asked to decide.

This was not a new determination of guilt or innocence. Anthony’s appellate team was requesting a new trial based on alleged errors and constitutional violations connected to the original proceedings.

Steph and MD discuss the alleged “gentleman’s agreement,” whether the defense relied on it when making critical trial decisions, and why the defense needed to prove that this reliance affected the outcome. They also examine the due-process arguments, Anthony’s right to present a complete defense, and the Waller test involving the right to a public trial.

MD explains why appellate relief is difficult to obtain and why the public-trial claim may be the defense’s strongest argument. The episode closes with Steph and MD discussing why the trial can still raise serious fairness concerns—particularly regarding venue, jury selection, and public access.

Timestamps

00:31 – Steph introduces MD
02:22 – What Judge Chitty had to decide
04:17 – The alleged gentleman’s agreement
08:10 – Proving breach and prejudice
09:10 – How the agreement may have shaped trial strategy
17:54 – The constitutional arguments
18:49 – Due process and fundamental fairness
21:26 – The Waller test and public-trial issue
28:28 – Why damaging information may be inadmissible
33:14 – How appellate courts evaluate errors
35:11 – The defense’s strongest appellate argument
37:05 – Why MD believes the trial was unfair
39:00 – Closing thoughts and listener feedback