As the Karmelo Anthony murder trial heads into its third day of testimony Saturday, the attorney who successfully fought to keep cameras in the courtroom during O.J. Simpson’s murder trial says he sees troubling parallels between the public reaction to both cases, particularly when it comes to race.
Royal Oakes, a California-based media attorney who represented news organizations seeking courtroom access during the Simpson trial, told Fox News Digital that the same cultural and racial tensions that surrounded O.J.’s case in the 1990s appear to be resurfacing as Anthony’s case unfolds in Texas.
“We’re likely to see the exact same dynamic developing in this case that we saw in the O.J. Simpson murder trial,” Oakes said. “A huge cultural and racial divide.”
Anthony is accused of fatally stabbing fellow student Austin Metcalf during a confrontation at a Texas track meet. He has pleaded not guilty, and his defense team is expected to argue he acted in self-defense.
The case has sparked intense debate online and drawn supporters to the courthouse, with discussions often extending far beyond the facts of the case itself.
When asked whether the Anthony case is evolving into a broader conversation about race in America, Oakes said, “This case absolutely is going to hit so many hot buttons. The issue of race in America, the critical question of self-defense.”
📩 Have a story tip? Email me at stepheny.price@fox.com.
📸 Captured a newsworthy photo? Send it to me on Instagram at @fndstephprice.
🎥 Witnessed breaking news or recorded compelling video? Reach out on X at @Stephenyprice.
🚨 See something happening in your community? I welcome tips, photos, and videos that help tell important stories.
Oakes noted that public opinion during the Simpson trial often broke sharply along racial lines, with polls showing dramatically different views among Black and White Americans.
AMERICA STILL CAN’T PUT DOWN THE RACE CARD. AND IT’S THE SHAME OF OUR NATION
“And so you could see the same kind of thing duplicated in this case as well,” he said.
The attorney said the greatest risk in any high-profile case is allowing race or politics to overshadow the evidence presented in court.
KAREN READ JURY SELECTION: DOZENS IN POOL ALREADY HAVE AN OPINION ON THE CASE
“It is certainly possible that racial narratives can overshadow the actual facts in a case,” Oakes said.
At the same time, Oakes downplayed the impact of demonstrations and supporters gathering outside courthouses, arguing that Americans have become accustomed to strong public expressions of opinion.
Still, he acknowledged there is a point where activism surrounding a case can become problematic.
“There is a danger that public demonstrations, if they are just so exuberant, if they get so far out of hand, will start to influence people,” Oakes said.
He pointed to the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict in Los Angeles as an example of how public pressure can affect perceptions surrounding criminal proceedings.
Unlike the Simpson trial, Oakes said today’s debate is unfolding through a constant stream of viral clips, social media posts and commentary that can shape opinions before the full story emerges.
“Today, it’s so different,” Oakes said. “I don’t think you’re going to get anybody to sit down and watch eight hours a day of a trial. Instead, you’re going to see 800 snippets on social media.”
O.J. SIMPSON PROSECUTOR MARCIA CLARK DISSECTS EVOLVING MEDIA’S IMPACT ON TRIALS AND TRUE CRIME
That rapid-fire information environment, he said, may make it even harder for the public to separate facts from narratives.
“The big mistake that people made in evaluating the O.J. Simpson trial is that they went in with biases,” Oakes said. “Either in favor of Simpson or against him, in favor of the cops or against them, and they didn’t have an open mind to see what happened.”
For Oakes, the similarities between the two cases ultimately come back to one concern: whether Americans are forming conclusions before hearing all of the evidence.
“The prime comparison between the O.J. Simpson case and this case is that people do tend to take sides along racial lines,” he said. “The important thing is that whoever is picked on a jury can convince the lawyers and the judge that they will be objective.”
