Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - KARMELO ANTHONY CONVICTION TO BE TOSSED? VICTIM'S DAD RESPONDS

Episode Date: August 29, 2026

Karmelo Anthony’s motion for a new trial in the stabbing death of  Austin Metcalf,17,  has been denied.   Anthony, 19, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years in prison after a jury rejected his self-defense claim.   In the motion for a new trial, Anthony's defense team claimed  the trial was unfair due to: Restrictions on public access to proceedings, citing security concerns, a  “gentleman’s agreement” between prosecutors and defense to suppress potentially damaging character evidence about both Anthony and Metcalf, claims Anthony was coerced into waiving his right to testify because of the agreement, alleged jury instructions that self-defense did not apply if Anthony provoked the altercation.   New allegations and evidence put before the court as prosecutors revealed that Anthony’s ex-girlfriend reported him to school for stalking and sent texts saying he was “lowkey on the verge” and wanted to “stab someone” and “lick the blood off the blade.”   Defense attorneys presented school and phone records showing Metcalf spray-painted racial slurs and phrases like “KKK” and “Heil Hitler.”    The Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas will review the denial.  Anthony’s attorneys,  say they will continue the appeal and pursue all legal remedies. Joining Nancy Grace today: Jeff Metcalf (TX) - Austin Metcalf's Father and founder of 'Austin Metcalf Foundation' - Non-profit will focus on emotional regulation and conflict resolution.  Website: https://austinmetcalffoundation.org  Dr. Bruce C. Carter - Director, Austin Metcalf Foundation  Renee Rockwell - Criminal Defense Attorney, Facebook: Renee.Rockwell Philip Dubé - Former Court-Appointed Counsel, Los Angeles County Public Defenders: Criminal & Constitutional Law, Forensics & Mental Health Advocacy Dave Mack - Crime Online investigative reporter See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-heart podcast. Guaranteed human. Get Bell Pure Fiber Internet with Crave, Netflix, and Disney Plus from $94 a month. Price guaranteed for two years on Internet with a two-year term and auto pay credit. Visit bell.ca for details and to check availability. Bell, connection is everything. Crime stories with Nancy Grace. Bob Sheldonite.

Carmelo Anthony was. convicted in the murder of teen athlete, Austin Metcalf. But tonight is Anthony's conviction set to be thrown out, reversed, tossed? Tonight, joining us, Austin Metcalf's father responds. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. I want to thank you for being with us. And why did the suspect have a knife at a track meet? Anthony grabbed his bag, opened it, reached inside, and said, touch me and see what happens. The suspect stabbed an unarmed teen boy. Hold on.

And I'm just protecting myself. Where do you want me? If somebody is treating him the victim, they need to be over there. Don't reach for anything, all right, man. Stop right there for him. Right there. Dispatch 443. I got the suspects.

And they're currently treating the victim. Again, he's on the north end of the stadium. This is the alleged suspect. All right, man. Okay. What are you there to be? Not on your person at all? Nothing.

Mind if I reaching your pockets and stuff and all that? Not a bad. Stamina? No, sir. All right. Did the jury get it right? Yeah, they did. You know, why?

Because they were picked based upon the law. They listened to the facts. that happened here in this very courtroom, and they got a verdict. And so that's the process. And whatever they say, they get it right. I talked to Mr. Anthony a couple times because I'm legally required to go over some things with him. He seems like a nice young man who committed a crime. and he understands today, more than any day before today, the consequences of committing a crime like he did. From our friends at WFAA, but to Crime Stories investigative reporter Dave Mack, you hear the judge, as Judge John Roach, who presided over the murder trial, state that Carmelo Anthony was a, quote, nice young man. Well, the jury did not hear a lot of information.

regarding Mr. Carmelo Anthony, such as what? Anse, Carmelo Anthony had a background that the jury never heard. Some kind of gentleman's agreement was struck, so the jury never heard that Carmelo Anthony had a fascination with knives and talked about blood and licking blood off the knife. he had a number of a number of strikes against him, I guess is the best way to put it. They were all personal and dealt with his background growing up

and being in love with a knife and the fact that a knife was used in this murder, they were able, the Carmelo Anthony's attorneys, were able to work a deal with the prosecutors to prevent the jury from hearing this personal information. Dave, Mac, you said a history with knives, I believe specifically. Text were uncovered regarding him stalking his girlfriend.

Text regarding his fascination with knife violence. A statement, the day of the murder, where he sends a picture of the murder weapon and under it states, I'm low-key on the edge, claims that he threatened to blow up the school or harm people at school, claims of prior attacks, none of that came in. Is that a correct summary of the information against Mr. Carmel, Anthony, did not come before the jury. Is that correct, Dave Mack? Yes, ma'am. That is exactly correct, Nancy. There was so much information that the jury did not hear. And it's really shocking because a lot of

it said, well, why would anybody take a knife to attract me? Well, after seeing these messages, these text messages, yeah, you kind of understand this was right up his alley. As a matter of fact, Dave Mack, wasn't there a statement from Mr. Anthony that said he would lick. lick, L-I-C-K-the-blood off the knife. That is exactly what he said. Joining me is special guest, Jeff Metcalf. This is Austin's father. He is the founder of the Austin Metcalf Foundation.

It is a nonprofit focused on emotional regulation and conflict resolution. with him is Dr. Bruce Carter, the director of the Austin Metcalf Foundation. Mr. Metcalf, thank you for being with us. Good to see you again, Nancy. There was a quote, gentleman's agreement where that evidence did not come in against Carmelo Anthony and evidence against your son, the murder victim. would not come in. My question to start with is,

were you surprised that Carmelo Anthony said he wanted to lick blood off a knife? I mean, that particular statement definitely sent up red flags. So it's not a normal statement that he would make. So, yes, it concerned me. Okay, you know, I had a stronger reaction, I guess, than you did, Mr. Metcalf, because when I have a murder committed with a knife

and a picture of the murder weapon is texted the day of the murder and underneath it says I'm low-key on the verge coupled with claims

that the killer stated, I want to lick the blood off the knife, I have a pretty violent reaction to that. Renee Rockwell joining me, criminal defense attorney out of the Atlanta jurisdiction, they should be really happy, really happy, that that testimony did not come into evidence. That would have case closed right there. So, Nancy, when you're a defense attorney, you're worried about the way your client looks.

What is he going to wear? Where is he going to sit? What is his hair going to look like? You're worried about everything. The worst thing of all that can come in is something that's going to make the jury hate him, make the jury decide what happened before the evidence he's even heard. Of course you're going to leave that out. That's evidence of poor character.

Back to Mr. Metcalf. Mr. Metcalf, what can you tell me about this so-called gentleman's agreement? because as part of that agreement, not only was very incendiary, damning, damning evidence about Carmelo Anthony kept out, but the state agreed that in exchange for that, the defense would keep out facts regarding Austin. Like what facts were the damning facts about Austin?

The murder victim. Well, they brought up facts about Hunter and Austin. So they went all the way back as far as fourth grade, and they pulled all school records and all police record. Well, they were caught spray painting graffiti when they were young. That was a problem. And there was an incident at school in fourth grade involving, quote, an assault, but he pushed a girl to the ground.

It got way out of hand, obviously, and they went to the police, but outside of that, the rest were basically school infractions, and it went on and just documented every single thing that ever happened in their life as teenagers and young children. Did you say this goes, the so-called damning evidence was him pushing a girl down on the playground in the fourth grade? That was one of them. And the other one was that they did spray paint some graffiti

with some racial overtones with it. So they were punished at home. They were, you know, they had to do 12 months probation. I mean, I think that was in sixth grade, but outside of that, the rest was just like in-school suspensions or out-school suspensions for comments, made the teachers, bad language, things like that. Okay, let me understand. How old was he when he spray-painted graffiti of a racist nature?

When was that? I think they were 12. if I remember. Okay. So, in exchange for that, not coming in, evidence that Carmelo Anthony sent a picture of the murder weapon that says, I'm low-key on the verge, the day of the murder,

and evidence that he said he wanted to lick blood off the knife. I don't know. Was that a fair exchange? I mean, it was a deal that. was struck between the attorneys. So the way it was presented to me was we're only going to deal with what happened that day. Stick to the facts of what happened underneath the tent on that particular day. And I was okay with that. Get Bell Pure Fiber Internet with Crave, Netflix, and Disney Plus from $94 a month, price guaranteed for two years on internet with a two-year term and auto pay credit. Visit bell.ca for details and to check availability. Bell.

Connection is everything. Crime stories with Nancy Grace. Let me understand. Dave Mack, the so-called gentleman's agreement occurred in chambers, in camera. It was not made part of the official record, the transcript. The damning evidence about Carmelo Anthony never saw the light of day in the courtroom. It was not part of the appellate record to my understanding. The racist graffiti that Austin Metcalf spray painted and I think you said sixth grade, that didn't come in. And some school suspensions and pushing the girl down on the playground.

That didn't come in. And it's not part of the trial record. Is that true? Correct. Everything you just said is correct. So Renee Rockwell, where this leaves me is. we're looking down the wrong end of a barrel of a reversal. Because this is how it played out, Renee,

and Dave, jump in, Mr. Metcalf, Dr. Carter, jump in if I've got this wrong. But the way I understand it is this. So they don't want any of this inflammatory prejudicial evidence to come in on any record, right? because the media will get a hold of it and it will be on page six, right? Carmelo Anthony wants to lick blood off knife.

Okay, racist graffiti. It was not part of the record. But then, then, here's where the rub is. Here's the fly in the ointment, Renee. Then we hear post-trial, Carmelo Anthony says, well, I wanted to take the stand. But when he wanted to take the stand at trial, the prosecutor said, uh-uh, no, no. This deal not to bring in his past does not extend to his testimony.

You have already introduced good character about your client. You've, quote, opened the door. The state cannot bring in bad reputation on a defendant, period. Unless and until the defense opens the door, introducing good character. So, here's the appellate argument, Renee. Let me see Renee Rockwell. There's the knife. The appellate argument is, my client's right to take the stand under the Sixth Amendment was impinged upon because they, the prosecution, broke their deal that they wouldn't bring this evidence in on cross-examination

about licking the knife and so forth. The state is saying, no, no, that agreement did not extend to him taking the stand, plus you brought in good character. So now we have to respond with this evidence. That's on you. This is a

serious appellate issue. When it impinges on your right to take the stand, you've got a problem. And Nancy, how else do you make a self-defense claim unless you get on the stand and say, okay, I did it. There was no doubt, there was 16 witnesses. There's no doubt who done it. The question becomes, why did you do it? And if you're going to

report that you did something in self-defense, who's going to talk about it if you can't take the stand? So that's what they're going to be dealing with post-conviction on appeal. Did he understand what the attorneys were agreeing to? I don't think that you can argue on appeal. I didn't understand what my lawyers are telling me. Now, that's not going to hold up on appeal. But if his decision to take the stand was impinged upon by this gentleman's agreement where there's no record of it, that's going to be a problem.

Mr. Metcalfe, I'd like to hear your response to the possibility that this could be reversed and we have to start from scratch. Me personally, I mean, the legal system will play out. I have no control over it. Me personally, I don't believe there are grounds to get it overturned. But if it's overturned, I'll have to relive the nightmare all over again. But the facts don't change. The facts are still the facts.

This video from our friends at NBC, joining me now, Philip Dubay, veteran trial lawyer out of the L.A. jurisdiction, formerly with the L.A. public defender's office. Way in, Philip. Before we do that, the law also says that if you try to introduce bad character on a victim, it opens the door to bad character on a defendant. So the reverse can also be true. As soon as you start saying that a victim is not peaceable, you open the door to your violence or propensity for violence. So it works both ways. René Rockwell, the law is that when a defendant brings on their good character, oh, he's a choir boy, he's never been in trouble,

he's never had a conviction. As soon as the defendant, the defendant brings on a good character, oh, he's a choir boy, he's never been in trouble, he's never had a conviction. As soon as the defense puts up good character on their client, I would wait for it. I'd wait, because I would have a stack of convictions of prior bad acts, you name it, waiting for the defendant to take the stand. If they brought in good character, bam, I'm all over that with bad character. But if the defendant never brings up good character, I can't bring it in. It just sits there and it gets locked away when the trial is over with all the other documents. It is illegal. It is unconstitutional to bring in a defendant's bad character until and unless the defense brings in good character. Do you agree? I agree. Now, the question becomes they have this handshake deal where they're not going to talk about anybody's character.

And they're not going to talk about what he would have said about licking a knife or low-key on the verge. That sounds like premeditation to me, Nancy. But if you want to support a self-defense claim, you have to take the stand. The problem is, had he taken the stand, here comes the state saying, that's fine, we're going to bring in all this bad character. State should not have been able to do that without his him opening the door to character. Him meaning Carmela opening the door and saying, hey, I'm just a choir boy. I'm a good kid. I would have never done that unless we're a vote.

This morning was the first day I woke up with a feeling of peace, comfort, tranquility that I haven't experienced in 14 months. What killed me was the body. cam footage when I could hear Hunter screaming. Oh God, oh God, my brother, my twin, and if you have children and if it was your child who was murdered, would you like people dragging his name through the mud, making memes, making jokes and just really vile comments? From our friends at CBS, Mr. Metcalf, what is your reaction to the people?

proposition this case could very well be reversed and all of that happens again. I mean, I'll meet it head on just like any other problems we do. I'm not going to avoid it. I'm not going to try to deflect. It'd be the same thing. The facts are still the facts. And I think if this evidence is introduced now that it's out in the open, it will be introduced in a new trial. I generally believe he'll get more than the original sentence. Everyone actually, I don't understand. Everyone. All of the witnesses' statements were inconsistent.

All of them. We called about 17 eyewitnesses, and it was a very diverse group of young men and women that came into court to testify. And the jury that saw that quickly realized this case was never about race. This case was about murder, plain and simple. From CBS 11 and Fox, you know, it's very murky what will happen if this evidence does come in. But that is not the issue tonight. The issue is, will there be a reversal? Now, it's not unusual, is it, Renee Rockwell, for once there's a conviction,

the whole trial team is thrown out. They're gone because the new appellate team taking the conviction. trying to get a reversal, will very likely trash the trial lawyers that gave it their all at trial. That's what's happening here. The trial team is out. Now there's a new appellate team. Explain how that works. And what you have to say at this level and at this point, the new lawyers will say the old trial team was ineffective.

The claim is ineffective assistance of counsel. maybe they shouldn't have made that deal. Maybe they should have put him on the stand. How are you going to support a self-defense claim without putting the client on the stand? Of course, they're saying, 2020 hindsight, they're saying that the first trial team messed up. But that is not uncommon, Renee. This is from our friends at NBC. That is expected amongst trial lawyers.

You get a conviction. You are going to be blasted, lambasted, lambasted. on appeal. Everything you did, if you sneezed in court, that's going to go on appeal. Because the best avenue some defendants have is to say, my trial lawyer sucked. That's illegal. It happens all the time, Nancy. Latin term. It happens all the time. It's nothing new. Don't take it personally, trial team. It happens every day. Not necessarily Latin, but here's what happens. In your motion for new trial, attorneys are often placed on the stand. The defense attorneys are placed on the stand is,

isn't it true? You didn't call the client. Isn't it true that the client wanted to testify? Did you include him when you were making this gentleman's agreement? How were you going to support a self-defense claim without putting him on the stand? There were 16 witnesses to the contrary. Who was there stating that he was afraid, afraid of grave bodily injury or death, and that he felt like he was, he was, he was forced to pull the knife out.

How are you going to do it without it? Well, that's where this is going. Exactly, Nancy. If this is retried and this inflammatory evidence comes in, the defense will be because Austin Metcalfe sprayed racist graffiti in what, six or seventh grade, that he hated African Americans. And so therefore, when Carmelho Anthony comes in, He already had a grudge.

So he was threatening. That's a far jump. But that will be the defense. That's what the defense will be. Absolutely. But I'm telling you, it will hurt the defense. It will hurt the defense a lot more if that evidence comes in on Carmelo Anthony. Sending a picture of the, let's throw it to DeBay, sending a picture of the murder weapon with the caption.

I'm on the, I'm low-key on the verge talking about. He wants to lick blood off the weapon. I mean, that's damning. If the jury hears that, I mean, I think that by keeping all this out, Anthony got the long end of the stick. That evidence would have hurt him a lot more than the evidence against Metcalf. Yeah, I would rather leave the record silent at that point and make him look like an altar boy, frankly.

Listen, gentlemen' agreements are reached every day in our trial courts. We do it all the time for brevity's sake and for tactical reasons. No higher court is going to disturb this verdict because of a tactical or strategic decision made by defense counsel. That's what we do. And that is the type of choice, whether or not to introduce character evidence is made by counsel, not the client. The only thing that the client gets to decide is whether or not he wants a jury and he wants a jury to sentence him and whether or not he testifies and whether or not he wants to concede guilt. But otherwise, counsel is the captain of the ship.

Well, I'm telling you, I don't know what goes on in your jurisdiction of L.A., but I never had gentlemen agreements. I put everything on the record. And frankly, I said, bring it on, you got something on my victim? If you think you can figure out a way to get it in legally have at it because I'll think a way to keep it out legally. But that's just me. What?

I'll give you another example where we have these gentlemen agreement. So for example, I might make an agreement with the prosecution not to ever object to each other during our opening statement or our closing argument. Unless there is some- Oh, hell no. Uh-uh. What? No. I've changed an opening statement all the time. If it's illegal, no problem. If it's blatantly illegal, yeah, but just to break our stride and take the wind out of our sales when we're trying to tell our story to a jury, as a professional, we don't do that to each other. That is a gentleman's agreement. That's how you practice law. Get Bell Pure Fiber Internet with Craved Netflix and Disney Plus from $94 a month.

Price guaranteed for two years on internet with a two-year term and auto pay credit. Visit bell.ca for details and to check availability. Bell, connection is everything. Crime stories with Nancy Grace. I think that under the Code of Ethics, You don't do that. And you only object when there is a reason to object. You don't just object to irritate the other lawyer. But there's no way I would agree not to object if they did something wrong.

H-E-L-L-N-O. I want an objection and a ruling in my favor. If the defense is doing anything, they're not supposed to do. Misstating facts. I don't care what it is. We're going to the mat. But, you know, maybe that's why I'm not a gentleman. In this case, though, Philip, do you see?

I see what the defense is arguing, that because of this agreement that when he wanted to take the stand, that he was chilled. He's claiming he couldn't take the stand because all this evidence against him would come in and the state's saying, yeah, because you brought in good character. You violated the agreement. Loose versus United States, 1984 says that unless an

until you take the stand and get impeached with that behavior, it is non-appealable, period, because nobody can assess the weight or the effect or the impact that that impeachment will have on a defendant. But less than until he takes the stand, he's waiving that point on appeal. That's the law of the land. Tonight, will Carmelo Anthony convicted killer of star athlete Austin Metcalfe get a new trial? Is this conviction headed for reversal? He's going to prison!

Yay! Am I supposed to be excited? Guess what? I'm not. Because I don't promote and I don't accept. I feel sorry for that young man. He's fixing to live a living hell. Not that he doesn't deserve it.

Yes, he does. But I'm human. I want to move on. I don't want to keep dragging things out. And if they spend all the money, there's nothing to get anyway. So I really don't care. Money's not going to bring my son back. Going after them, even if I bankrupt them or whatever, it's not going to bring my son back.

Austin will never come back to that door again. That boy, he has the ability right now, actually, to be out before he's 40. He can still have a life in kids. You tell me, you think that's justice? Nah. No, I'm not happy with the sentence. No, there was no justice, sir. That from Jink Sit slash Rumble,

Jeff Metcalfe, if this is reversed, and there's strong indications it could be, are you prepared to go back to court every single day the way you did the first time? Well, Nancy, I don't know if you're aware, you know, the hearings that just happened. One, Judge Roach was recused on Wednesday, and then they had a motion for a new trial Thursday and Friday. That was denied by a judge who replaced Judge Roach. So the only thing left is for the actual appeal to work its way through the

appellate court now, which will take some time, probably one to two years. Do I feel like they have enough grounds to reverse it? No. Or I think it would have been granted a new trial at this hearing. No, I have to disagree with you, Mr. McKath. And my question was, are you prepared to go to court every single day if there is a new trial? Yes, ma'am. 100%. Okay. Here's the deal, Renee and Philip. Renée, Rockwell, Philip DeVay, both veteran defense attorneys. Renee, first of you, motion for new trial. Mr. McKaff is encouraging. by the fact that a different judge at the same level as the trial judge who has been recused said no motion for new trial. They very rarely are granted. A motion for new trial is very simply the first step in the appellate process. It's practically routine because you typically are asking the judge you tried the case, hey, judge, reverse yourself because you're really screwed up. Never happens. Or the case. got screwed up under your watch.

It happens sometimes. I know it's not never, but it's very rare. I believe that was my phraseology. It rarely happens. Rare. However. Okay, do you agree with that, Debe? A motion for new trial is rarely granted.

If ever, they are so rarely granted. It's not even fun. If ever, they're just not granted. And one time I brought a motion for a new trial based on your misconduct, the court found harmless error. of that went nowhere. The client stood convicted and went off to prison to do his time. Yeah, I mean, basically, it would be like me saying,

Hey, Debe, everything you've said in the last hour is wrong. So just you want to reverse it? You go, no, that's not true. I'm not reversing it. That's what it's like. You go back to the trial judge and say, hey, you screwed up big time, buddy. Let's just start all over again.

That's not going to happen. And it goes up on appeal. This is just simply the beginning of the appellate process. Of course. So did Carmelo Anthony actually want to testify? Did Carmelo want to testify on his own behalf and was... It was based on everything, it didn't need nothing because everything they said on their self-defense, they have to prove it.

They never prove. And a lot of times in self-defense cases, the conventional wisdom is you're not going to win on self-defense unless you call your client. So I was hoping he would take the stand. I was hoping jurors in our community would get to hear whatever story he chose to tell. From our friends at the Breakfast Club and Fox, and what was said at the beginning, someone did not communicate the law to family members because Renee Rockwell and Philip Dubay, self-defense is an affirmative defense.

The burden is not on the state to prove self-defense. It is on the defense, hence it is called. affirmative defense. It basically says, yes, I did it, but I acted in self-defense. And then the onus is on the defense to prove it. So it's not on the state approved self-defense, Renee. How do you do it unless you put your client on the stand, Nancy? So that's what his position is. Now I was chilled because of this agreement, and I really wanted to testify, but then they threw all this back at me so I couldn't testify. Exactly.

Now on head. Philip, elaborate. If the young man was told that should he take the stand, his bad character could come in somehow, should he try to implicate Austin Medcap as having a history of violence, it would have opened the door to his bad character, and he would have been grilled like a cheeseburger on cross-examination. And frankly, because under Texas law,

the jury gets to sentence him because he waived his right to have the judge do it. I could see a jury slamming him with more than 35 years when all that prior bad conduct comes in. On a positive note, as we wait to find out if this whole thing is going to be reversed and we start all over with jury selection, Dr. Bruce Carter is with us. I know you have been seeing him on screen with Mr. Metcalf. He is the director at the Austin Metcalfe Foundation. Dr. Carter, could you explain the purpose

of the foundation and your involvement? How did you get involved? Why do you believe it's necessary? Why do you want to be involved in Austin's Foundation? Well, the first thing is it's necessary. Well, the mission is to prevent the next

Austin Metcalfe, Camelo, anti-interaction becoming deadly or someone going to prison. I became involved because I met Jeff as he was kicked out of a press conference, maybe three weeks after Austin was killed. And he just leaned on me. We'd have conversations back and forth.

And once this was over with, he called me and said, man, I found my purpose. I want to start a nonprofit. And it's the Austin Metcalf Foundation. I want you to help me organize it. After four-hour meeting at Hutchins Barbecue, it went from me organizing to be a part of the foundation.

And at that meeting, when I agreed to do it, what Jeff did was this. He was very clear, hey, man, I want you to know, my kids did this. There was some graffiti. They used racist tone. I want you to be really clear what you're walking into because you're going to be ridiculed. But at the end of the day, the purpose of what this organization will do is greater than the ridicule that I do get for working with Jeff. But we're going to save some lives.

and we've already started that process. So I'm 100% committed and make sure that we get the job done. And for those who have an issue with a young kid who had some stuff in his background, his name will eventually have one kid said, the author of the Medcaf Foundation helped me change the way I responded. And that's going to be the victory. I pray to our Holy Father in heaven that you are right with me. Dr. Bruce C. Carter, he is the director of the Austin Metcalf Foundation,

along with Austin's father, Jeff Metcalf, now endeavoring to change the world in their own way. What really happened in that gentleman's agreement? Was Carmelo Anthony's constitutional rights violated, or did he avoid the stand because he didn't want to get grilled on cross-exam? We wait as justice unfolds if you know or think you know anything regarding this case. 972-292-192-6010. 972-292-6010. We remember an American hero, Detective Justin Terry, Vegas Metropolitan PD, killed in the line of duty after serving the public 21 years, leaving behind a wife now widow, Stacy and sons, Sean and Jacob.

American hero, detective, Justin Terry. Thank you to our guests, but thank you for being with us tonight. Nancy Gray signing off, but I'll see you tomorrow and I'll tell you tomorrow. And until that, good night, friend. This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed human.