Lindsay Clancy's lawyer makes stunning argument in first hearing since recent mistrial



Lindsay Clancy's lawyer made a stunning argument Tuesday in the first hearing since her mistrial earlier this month.

At Clancy's murder trial that took place over the summer and ended in a mistrial Sept. 4 with a deadlocked jury, her attorney Kevin Reddington did not dispute that his client strangled her three young children to death in 2023.

'Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this?'

In fact, the Associated Press reported at the time that "both sides agree she killed her children," but Clancy's defense argued that she wasn't criminally responsible for their deaths because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.

However, Reddington argued Tuesday that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that Clancy, now 36, killed her three children, the AP said.

“This entire case is based on speculation,” Reddington said Tuesday, according to the outlet, which added that the lawyer tried to persuade Judge William Sullivan — the same judge who presided over the first trial — to acquit Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse.

More from the AP:

There is, Reddington contended, not enough evidence “that this woman killed those children.” He pointed to matters ranging from her condition when she was found, badly injured and bleeding in the yard outside her home, to her lack of memory of what happened when she woke up in a hospital. At the first trial, her now ex-husband and first responders testified that they arrived at the house and discovered she had tried to kill herself right after killing the children.

"Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this?” Reddington asked, going on to recap his arguments that she also was psychotic and delusional at the time of the children’s deaths. He didn’t offer any alternative theories or evidence about who might be responsible.

Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham called Reddington's argument “laughable,” the AP reported, as she pointed out evidence presented during the original trial. In court papers filed Monday, prosecutors recapped their arguments that there was enough evidence to convict Clancy, the outlet noted.

The prosecution stated that Clancy knew her actions were wrong when she used exercise bands to strangle 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan Clancy, the AP said. The prosecution also maintained that Clancy schemed to get her husband out of the house that evening by sending him to pick up medicine for one of their children and dinner for the family, the outlet added.

Judge William Sullivan didn’t immediately decide, the AP said, and no trial date was set.

However, Sullivan concluded Tuesday's hearing by saying attorneys should be prepared on Nov. 2 for picking a new trial date.

RELATED: Lindsay Clancy murder trial hits huge speed bump (UPDATE)

Prosecutors haven't yet decided if they will retry Clancy, Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said after the hearing, the outlet said.

They could choose to retry her on first-degree murder charges or seek to try her only on lesser charges, including second-degree murder or manslaughter — or drop the case entirely, the AP reported.

“We are going to do what we can for the children,” Cruz told reporters outside court, the outlet said. “That is what this case is about.”

Clancy’s attorneys also have asked the judge to dismiss the criminal case, the AP said, adding that they have argued that the judge should have dismissed one juror who favored a murder conviction after the jury foreperson complained that he refused to listen to the law on reasonable doubt. The jury was split 11 to 1 in Clancy's favor, the outlet said.

The holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, has said through his lawyer that he had no doubts about his stance, the AP said.

Desronvil told Fox News’ “Hannity” in a brief video statement Monday that “the whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels,” meaning the children, the outlet noted.

About a dozen Clancy supporters, most dressed in pink, stood outside court Tuesday waiting for her to arrive, the AP said.

Clancy remains charged with murder and is expected to stay at a psychiatric hospital until her case is resolved, the outlet said, adding that she could have been sentenced to life in prison if convicted of murder — but if acquitted, the judge could have ordered her confined to a mental health facility.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Livestreaming Trials Emboldens Lawyers Like Lindsay Clancy’s To Act Out For Clicks

The judge overseeing the Lindsay Clancy case declared a mistrial Friday after only a single juror prevented a unanimous verdict, purportedly because he was willing to convict the self-admitted baby killer. In a seeming bid to discredit the juror, Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, appeared to suggest the holdout juror might be bigoted against disabled […]

Lindsay Clancy murder trial fireworks: Defense attorney wants 1 juror kicked out, tells judge his jury instruction is 'soft'



Just before a deadlocked Massachusetts jury of nine women and three men Thursday afternoon completed a sixth day of deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial with no verdict, there were fireworks in the Plymouth courtroom.

The prosecution and defense have agreed that Clancy — a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse — killed her three young children in 2023; the issue has been whether she is criminally responsible for their deaths due to her mental state, the Associated Press said.

'If we come back here in a half-hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it’s a shame — it’s a real shame.'

The fireworks started with a lengthy and animated sidebar — a private discussion between the judge and attorneys on both sides. The AP in a separate story called the sidebar "impassioned," with Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington pointing his finger and Judge William Sullivan handing him a document.

As the sidebar stretched past the 10-minute mark, two court officers joined the discussion, which featured Reddington sighing, speaking to the judge, and slicing the air with his hand, the AP reported.

Then jurors began entering the courtroom one by one and were sworn in, after which the judge spoke to each juror, and then they were taken back out of the courtroom, the outlet said, adding that it wasn't clear what was said.

The jury then re-entered the courtroom, and the outlet said the Judge Sullivan told jurors, “I want to remind you that you are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave you."

Sullivan also said, “It is not enough for prosecutors to show a probability, or even a strong probability, of guilt,” the AP noted, adding that the judge also said proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. He then sent the jury back to deliberate further — and the outlet said some in the audience gasped.

With the jury out of the courtroom, Reddington spoke in a microphone directly to Sullivan.

“The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury — that has been working for a week — now saying there is one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you have given him or her on reasonable doubt,” Reddington said, his voice rising, the AP reported. “I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them, saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the law as I instruct you, does not focus on the issue.”

The outlet said Reddington asked the judge to remove the juror in question.

“If we come back here in a half-hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it’s a shame — it’s a real shame,” Reddington said, according to the AP.

RELATED: Woman charged with juror intimidation at Clancy trial tells different tale than images on her phone: Prosecutor

But Sullivan said removing a juror from a “deliberating jury is a sensitive undertaking," the outlet reported.

“I don’t feel it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or 11,” Sullivan said, according to the AP. “At this point, I have asked if they are able to follow instructions. They swore earlier they could. They have said at this point they can.”

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said the judge’s instruction was appropriate and no further action was necessary, the outlet noted.

Soon Sullivan called the jury members back into the courtroom and dismissed them until 9 a.m. Friday, at which time they again will resume deliberations.

Outside the courthouse, Reddington expressed hope that the trial will be resolved after the judge questions a juror on Friday, the AP said: “There will be an inquiry by the judge tomorrow at 9 o’clock. There’s a person who has doubt but will not listen to the judge’s instructions.”

Reddington also told reporters outside the courthouse that the jury foreperson’s note identified the holdout juror to the judge, the outlet noted, adding that Reddington is hoping that before the judge questions that juror on Friday, attorneys on both sides will get to argue in the open over the specifics of that inquiry.

Clancy has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the strangulation deaths of her three children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan — in their Duxbury home on Jan. 24, 2023, WBZ-TV reported.

Reddington said his client was not criminally responsible for killing her children because she was overmedicated and suffering from postpartum psychosis, the station reported, adding that prosecutors said Clancy planned the killings and knew right from wrong when she strangled the children.

If the jury convicts Clancy of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or manslaughter, she will go to prison, WBZ said, adding that if jurors find her not guilty by reason of insanity, she will be required to continue her stay at Tewksbury State Hospital, where her case will be reviewed periodically.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Torpedoing justice? Woman arrested outside trial of accused killer mom Lindsay Clancy



Lindsay Clancy's triple murder trial remains unresolved after jurors failed to reach a verdict on Tuesday, their fourth day of deliberations.

While jurors determine whether to hold Clancy criminally responsible for strangling her three young children — 8-month-old Callan, 3-year-old Dawson, and 5-year-old Cora — there are outside forces apparently keen to apply additional pressure.

'She is a wonderful, wonderful person.'

Massachusetts State Police arrested 56-year-old Dawn Light outside the Plymouth Superior Court around 3:40 p.m. on Tuesday and charged her with one count of intimidation of a witness, jurors, or person furnishing information in connection with criminal proceedings, a MSP spokesman confirmed to WCVB-TV.

While officials have yet to confirm whether the arrest was connected to the Clancy case, WBZ-TV's Kristina Rex reported that sources informed her that "someone (who is not a media member) was arrested outside Plymouth Superior Court this afternoon, accused of filming jurors in Lindsay Clancy's trial. Jurors allegedly saw the filming happening."

MSP did not immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

If convicted on the intimidation charge, Light could face up to 10 years in state prison and/or a hefty fine.

RELATED: Female reporter caught mischievously smirking during Lindsay Clancy trial has smile wiped off her face

There has been a lot of commotion taking place outside the courthouse since Clancy's trial began.

Hundreds of women have gathered — in many cases wearing pink and in some instances carrying their children — in support of the defendant.

A woman identified as Hannah E., who traveled from Houston to Massachusetts to show her support, told CBS News on Tuesday that she had postpartum depression after her second child was born and that she "understand[s] what happened to Lindsay."

"I understand the course that she went and the way things affected her," said the Texas mother.

Lindsay's attorney, Kevin Reddington, told reporters that his client has received enough letters of support from sympathizers to fill three banker's boxes.

"She knows that there are people out there that have not judged her and know that she is a wonderful, wonderful person," said Reddington.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Maternal instinct joins the dark side: Why so many mothers are backing Lindsay Clancy



The Lindsay Clancy murder trial has become a national true-crime spectacle. The Massachusetts mother who strangled her three young children with exercise bands in 2023 pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, citing postpartum psychosis, while prosecution argued the killings were premeditated and sought first-degree murder convictions.

With arguments complete, the jury has been deliberating since last Thursday with no verdict yet.

While BlazeTV host Rick Burgess is horrified by the tragic fates of Clancy’s three children, he is also deeply disturbed by the number of women who continue to support Clancy and advocate for her acquittal. On this episode of “Strange Encounters,” Rick highlights a dark shift in the maternal instinct — a shift he sees as demonic.

“I can't help but think to myself that this — not depression but this psychosis — it feels pretty new,” says Rick. “Women have been having babies for a long, long time.”

“Now we've gone to the point that we're almost willing to say a mom should not be held accountable for methodically and just horrifyingly killing one child after another, even catching one that tried to run,” he continues, calling it “evil.”

While Rick acknowledges that new mothers certainly need help and support, he refuses to co-sign on the idea that the lack thereof absolves someone of killing her children.

“This husband maybe wasn't supportive. You can be frustrated with doctors ... but holding her up as a poster child for postpartum moms and their struggles, I think, is going way too far with this,” he says.

The support Clancy is receiving from women — many of them mothers — indicates a "ugly shift,” he argues.

“There was a time when the maternal instinct of a woman would immediately pour out to the murdered children, not the clearly disturbed mother,” says Rick.

“That’s a shift, and I think it’s an ugly shift, and it’s one that should gravely concern us.”

What’s behind this, he contends, is undoubtedly spiritual. He highlights a warning from the late evangelical pastor John MacArthur: “MacArthur said, ‘Unfortunately, we're in a time now where people don't even want the church to feed their mind. They want the church to feed their emotions.'”

But when emotions rule, we become “a lawless society,” says Rick.

“You can and should, no problem, have compassion for Lindsay Clancy, OK? But you also can demand justice for the three children she [allegedly] murdered. It's not one or the other,” he notes.

“We can't live in a civilized society when the way I feel about something trumps what the law calls for … and we're already there to a degree.”

This devolution into lawlessness, he warns, reeks of demonic influence.

“For us to empathize with Lindsay Clancy more than we empathize with the children that were [allegedly] murdered” is “exactly what the dark forces of the spiritual realm” are gunning for, says Rick, “and that’s a dangerous road to be on.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rick Burgess?

To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Nick Freitas reveals the real reason women are turning Lindsay Clancy into a martyr



While BlazeTV host Nick Freitas is disturbed by the vocal support for murder-trial defendant Lindsay Clancy — the Massachusetts nurse who killed her three children and is arguing postpartum psychosis as a defense — he isn’t necessarily shocked by it.

On this episode of “Making the Argument,” Freitas dissects the toxic cultural environment that’s responsible for making Lindsay Clancy into a martyr.

“How is it that so many women can have this overwhelming sympathy for Lindsay and appear to demonstrate what appears to me anyways to be very little sympathy for what those children were going through in the last moments of their lives?” Freitas asks.

His wife, Tina, helped him answer that question.

“Tina's thing was, ‘Well honey, we live in a culture now where women celebrate abortion through all nine months worth of pregnancy. We live in a culture right now where women are constantly told that men are the threat,”’ Freitas recounts.

Regarding the latter issue, Freitas highlights how a vocal faction of Clancy supporters are insisting that it was her then-husband, Patrick, who killed their children and then framed her.

This conspiracy theory, he argues, is a side effect of the cultural norm of “women [ramping] each other up about the danger and the threat that men are” — a toxic trend that often leads to men being unfairly villainized or scapegoated.

“It's not that it's an inappropriate question whenever something like this happens to question everybody associated with the event or the act,” says Freitas, “but it's the insistence that no, it must be the husband. ... The father must have done something. ... It can't be Lindsay — like that sort of insistence is cultural.”

“When you devalue human life, when you treat men like they are the enemy ... you shouldn't be surprised when people respond accordingly,” he adds, calling the situation “horrific” and “evil.”

Even though there is no evidence that Patrick had anything to do with the deaths of his three children, the faction accusing him of being the culprit continues to grow louder — and more accusatory. Freitas points out that this vocal group is quick to attack fellow women who are critical or skeptical of the agenda to absolve Clancy of wrongdoing.

This reveals another destructive cultural pattern: the tendency to treat truth as tribal rather than objective.

“The truth is defined by tribe. The truth is defined by what my side is. ... We can't just go where facts take us, especially when the facts take us to a point where Lindsay has to be accountable for her actions,” says Freitas.

To hear more, watch the video above. “Making the Argument with Nick Freitas” is available on BlazeTV+, YouTube, and major podcast platforms.

Start watching Nick Freitas NOW at blazetv.com and use the promo code NICK40 for $40 off your BlazeTV+ subscription.

Why are so many women supporting Lindsay Clancy? John Doyle blames America’s true crime obsession



The chatter surrounding the Lindsay Clancy murder trial continues to grow more convoluted and contentious by the day.

Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse from Duxbury, Massachusetts, strangled her three children — ages 5, 3, and 8 months — with exercise bands in January 2023 before attempting suicide by jumping from a second-story window, leaving her paralyzed. She has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, claiming postpartum psychosis.

Hundreds of women recently gathered in pink outside her ongoing murder trial courthouse (and online via the “Same, Lindsay” trend) to defend her, arguing the medical system failed her and that many mothers share similar postpartum mental-health struggles. Another viral theory perpetuated largely by female Clancy supporters speculates that it was actually her now ex-husband, Patrick, who killed their children and framed her for the murders.

BlazeTV host John Doyle sees beyond the disturbing Clancy support to what he believes is fueling the apologetics surrounding her: the true crime obsession that has gripped so many American women.

True crime, Doyle explains, has become so popular that it’s the subject of many podcasts, television series, and books. There’s even entire true crime conventions that attract thousands of fans.

But it’s predominately women who make up the true crime audience.

Doyle believes there’s a connection between this data and Clancy’s significant base of female supporters. He argues that many of the women who get sucked into the twisted tales of serial killers will find ways to reject the “settled science” when it’s a woman who’s the perpetrator.

To illustrate this point, he reads a tweet from friend of the show Sean Fitzgerald who attended CrimeCon:

This tendency of these true crime fans to support female defendants regardless of the evidence brought against them is what’s fueling the support for Clancy, Doyle argues.

Women, he says, have been conditioned by modern culture to be “extremely paranoid of men” — even in situations when it’s a woman who’s facing conviction.

“The true crime thing, part of what they like about it is the mystery. ... It's like who did what to whom? What's going on? Oh my gosh, what if this person was framed and it was actually the man?” says Doyle.

What these “junior psychologists” fail to realize, however, is that “most everybody who is actually at the point of going to criminal trial is guilty,” he adds. “They're in that room for a reason.”

But in addition to their general distrust of men, Doyle continues, there’s the “drama” that pulls them in. A woman being framed by a man is a far more interesting scenario than a cut-and-dry case.

“These people are only interested in drama, in entertainment, in narrative. There's no part of them that considers the merits of individual claims. This is not about truth for them,” he says.

“If you put something in front of them that contradicts what they are telling you, they will reflexively deny it basically on credit. They'll say, ‘No, this isn't true. I just have to go find why,’ and then they go digging to find some piece of information to rationalize their having reflexively denied it,” he continues.

But if pushback continues, the doubling down only intensifies.

“They will even ... amplify the drama to themselves by asserting without any evidence at all that you, by not feeding into their fantasy, are actually a part of it — but on the side that's trying to hide the truth,” says Doyle. “Ultimately though, they're going to get mad at you for basically pouring water on their fantasy.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from John Doyle?

To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

New Testimony Builds Case That Charlie Kirk Was Assassinated For Christian Belief

Because Graf ruled that the document is admissible, he bolstered the prosecution's case for the victim-targeting enhancement, which could increase Robinson's punishment if he is found guilty.

America is done buying bogus racial alibis



Who kills more black males than anyone else? Other black males.

That is why the available data should tell you that if you are the parent of a black son, you should be far more concerned about what other young black men may do to him than what race-baiters and grievance-mongers may have to say about the Karmelo Anthony verdict.

We are tired of the fake black bravado culture that costs young men their lives and then demands that everyone else pretend the killer is the victim.

A jury in Texas deliberated for less than three hours this week before declaring Anthony guilty of first-degree murder for stabbing Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet last year. The judge sentenced the 19-year-old to 35 years in prison.

Justice was done. The facts are clear. And since this is 2026, not 1956, I am strenuously declaring any attempt to build an indefinite period of racial grievance around this case unavailable for the historically aggrieved. Those days are over.

I do not owe anyone moral deference because of skin color. I owe my neighbor love. I owe him fairness. I owe him the truth. I owe him the same moral standard I owe every other neighbor.

That cuts in every direction. You might be black, white, Hispanic, Asian, gay, straight, male, female, rich, poor, Christian, atheist, or whatever. None of it gives you permission to stab another young man and then demand that the country treat you as the victim.

My ancestors were so-called greasy Catholic dago wops who arrived with little, lived in real ghettos, worked thankless jobs, had children, and actually made their way in America in spite of it all. My mother had a kid at 15 — me — earned a GED, went to college, and improved her life. I was on food stamps and government cheese before we made our way forward together.

I owe you nothing.

The race-baiting Jezebel Jasmine Crockett has lived a far more privileged life than my mother or I ever did. She happens to be black, but I’m way more ghetto than she is.

So we’re done with her nonsense. The incendiary name-calling no longer works the way it once did. Americans under 60 are not moved by every accusation of racism. Many younger white male voters now respond with open contempt when activists try to turn criminal cases into racial theater. They don’t care — and they can’t wait to tell you so.

We are tired of the fake black bravado culture that costs young men their lives and then demands that everyone else pretend the killer is the victim. You do not get to stab someone because your feelings were hurt. You do not get to talk yourself into violence and then ask the public to blame society for your choices.

Two young men are gone from their families in different ways. One is dead. One will spend much of his life in prison. Both outcomes are terrible. Neither outcome can be fixed by pretending that race explains away responsibility.

If you are black in America, you face a choice: Are you black or are you American? It’s your call, and I’m praying you make the right one, because this nation needs all the loyal patriots it can get right now.

RELATED: White-hating agitator claiming Karmelo Anthony was ‘legally lynched’ is a criminal, disgraced ex-judge

LeoPatrizi/iStock/Getty Images

But if you make the wrong decision, please know that your fate will be yours and yours alone. We’ve run out of patience with any racial decadence, disarray, and deviance. We have no time to coddle you as we try to save what’s left of this culture. Try being a better human.

If a black male is more likely to be assaulted by a black male and a white male is more likely to be assaulted by a black male, then you're only left with two options as to why that is the case: Either Charles Darwin was right about some races being favored over others — his book “Descent of Man” is the guidebook for modern eugenics and one of the most racist things you'll ever read — or you can believe that despite being made in the likeness and image of God like the rest of us, modern black culture just sucks and we’re tired of paying for it.

For the record, I believe the latter. Either way, it's 2026, and the time for a reckoning is at hand. It’s your sin, not mine. Take responsibility for your actions. Stop wasting your life. Leave the ghetto behind.

The choice is yours.

So are the consequences.

Jury reaches verdict in Karmelo Anthony murder trial



Jurors took just short of three hours Tuesday to return a guilty verdict in the murder trial of Karmelo Anthony.

Jurors began deliberations at 10:54 a.m., KTVT-TV reported, and officials announced at 1:45 p.m. that a verdict had been reached.

'You don't get to kill someone just because they are bigger than you.'

The station reported that Anthony visibly broke down in the courtroom when the guilty verdict was read, and he is now in custody. KTVT added that Anthony's parents left the courtroom after the verdict was read.

Prior to the start of deliberations, jurors were instructed that they could consider a lesser charge of manslaughter, the station said.

Anthony was 17 when authorities charged him with murdering high school star athlete and fellow 17-year-old Austin Metcalf in a stabbing at a Frisco, Texas, track meet in April 2025.

The murder charge is a first-degree felony, the station said. Anthony faces a sentence of five to 99 years or life in prison. KTVT said the same jury is determining what sentence Anthony will face.

According to Texas law, murder means a defendant "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual," KTVT said — but manslaughter means the defendant "recklessly causes the death of an individual."

A conviction for manslaughter — a second-degree felony — would have meant a sentence of two to 20 years in prison, the station said.

Criminologist Alex del Carmen told KTVT in a separate story that he believed Anthony's case meets the threshold of manslaughter: "He didn't get up with the intent to kill someone, but he knew the risks taking that knife to campus and pulling it out. Self-defense or not, rational choices needed to be made."

Anthony's defense objected to jury instructions saying the jurors could find Anthony's self-defense argument not viable if they believe the defendant provoked the attack, the station said.

However, the prosecutor argued that a rational jury could find Anthony provoked the altercation, KTVT said, and therefore the instruction should remain. The judge agreed with the prosecutor, overruling the defense's objection, the station said.

RELATED: Karmelo Anthony murder trial: Jurors begin deliberations — and can consider lesser charge of manslaughter

The prosecutor waived the right to begin closing arguments Tuesday morning, so lead defense attorney Mike Howard was the first to address the jury, KTVT said.

Howard focused on his client's self-defense argument, saying, "Austin Metcalf had no legal right to use force to eject Karmelo Anthony from that tent," the station reported.

Howard added that "he had no legal right to put his hands on Karmelo" and that "Karmelo is in a public place," KTVT noted.

Howard also asked the members of the jury to put themselves in Anthony's shoes, noting that it was raining, the station said: "You want to get out of the rain. ... Sure enough, one of the people at Memorial says, 'Yeah, come on over.'"

KTVT said the defense attorney added that "Hunter Metcalf, or Austin, say, 'Who are you? You need to leave.' ... These guys are much bigger than you. Do you turn your back and walk away and take a chance with these teenage boys with their raging hormones?"

"Austin and Hunter had the right to tell Melo to leave, but they did not have the right to use deadly force to make him leave," Howard told the jury, according to the station. "Melo had an absolute right to [defend] himself against that."

Howard also asked the jury, "How do you know in a split second of chaos when it's too late? ... Because if you wait too late to defend yourself, self-defense is meaningless," KTVT reported.

Anthony did not take the stand in his defense.

Following the defense's closing argument, prosecutor Bill Wirskye began speaking to the jury and rebutting Anthony's self-defense claim, the station said.

"This is one of those rare cases where every important fact can be boiled down to one sentence: You do not get to meet a shove with a stab, especially if you provoke the shove," Wirskye said, according to KTVT.

"Why didn't [Anthony] just not walk away?" Wirskye asked jurors, according to the station. "You see [he] had a choice to walk away and abandon the encounter."

The prosecutor added that "you can meet deadly force with deadly force in Texas, but you can't meet force — a shove — with deadly force — a stab. Size differential, it doesn't work in this case; you don't get to kill someone just because they are bigger than you," KTVT reported.

Wirskye also told the jury that "self-defense has to be a reasonable belief — a reasonable belief means a belief that would [be] held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same situation as the defendant," the station said.

"It has to be immediately necessary. Where was the immediate necessity to plunge a knife into an unarmed young man?" Wirskye asked the jury, according to KTVT. "It's not self-defense, folks — it's murder. Murder, plain and simple."

Notably, all prospective black jurors were dismissed during jury selection last week — and one reportedly said he'd have a "hard time putting a brother in jail." Anthony is black; Metcalf was white. They attended different high schools and didn't know each other.

Racial tensions have surrounded the case from the start. Shortly after Metcalf's death, Anthony supporters went viral on social media, with one declaring that "Austin Metcalf got exactly what he deserved — point blank, period."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!