June 10, 2026 • 15 mins
Mimi Brown dedicates the entire episode to the verdict that just came down out of Collin County, Texas — Karmelo Anthony has been found guilty of murder in the 2025 stabbing death of seventeen-year-old Austin Metcalf. The self-defense claim did not hold. The sentencing phase is now underway. Attorney David Otunga joins Mimi to break down what the jury heard, why the verdict landed where it did, what to expect from sentencing, and the role race played in this case, both inside and outside the courtroom. Just the trial — the verdict — and what comes next.
From the Black Effect Podcast Network.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Well, the verdict is in. Carmelo Anthony has been found
guilty of murder. A Calling County jury took less than
three hours, and now that same jury is deciding how
many years he'll spend behind bars. This case has had
the whole country divided over race, over self defense, and
over what really happened under that tent. Joining us here
(00:25):
on front page to help us break it down and
understand what happened in that courtroom is attorney David O'toga.
He's a Harvard law graduate and legal analysis and David,
it's good to see you. Thank you for joining us today.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Thank you for having me, me me, I appreciate it absolutely.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
So let's just jump right in. There's so much information here.
A jury, they deliberated less than three hours and they
came back with a guilty verdict. What is this deliberation
that fast usually tell us, Well.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
They pretty much had their minds made up. For me,
I think that it came down to Carmelo Anthony not
taking the stand because this is a self defense case,
and a lot of times, just you know, in my
experience as being a lawyer, a lot of times the
defendant needs to take the stand. It is their right
(01:16):
not to, but jurors often want to hear from the
defendant in his or her own words, what happened. And
there was a long delay yesterday, some three hours, and
they thought that the defense was, you know, preparing Carmelo
Anthony to take the stand, and he ended up not
doing that and they rested their case, which was surprising
(01:39):
to me because just in following this, I'm not sure
that they raised enough reasonable doubt about this being self defense.
I wasn't convinced, like I felt, Carmelo needed to take
the stand, and I think that probably played a large
part in this, where the jury kind of already had
their mind made up, and in not hearing from him,
(02:02):
it made it simpler, it kind of depersonalized it. Just
in my experience, and of course I'm just speculating, but
this is something that I kind of feel probably played
into this.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
And to that point, the jury, though they had three
options right not guilty, manslaughter was one of them, or
murdered or what does it mean that they skip right
past manslaughter?
Speaker 2 (02:22):
In Texas, you just have to prove that the killing
was intentional, or that Carmelo Anthony knowingly killed Austin metcalf
and I mean that was pretty straightforward. So then once
they had to determine whether or not the self defense
was reasonable, I think that was straightforward. However, I still
feel like manslaughter fit more perfectly just off of what
(02:46):
I've heard, And you know, you have to take into
account these were teenagers, you know, seventeen years old. Carmelo
Anthony did not have a criminal record, was a three
point eight GPA like for and I believe he was
captain of the Fall team track Star like he was
a good kid up until this point. So it kind
(03:06):
of seemed like it was more reckless. And because even
his statements directly after the fact, this was a pocket knife,
which it's being reported a three inch blade, I think
the whole thing was five inches, and it was just
one one wound. He just reached out and stabbed one time,
so it wasn't like he stabbed over and over and
(03:28):
over and then you know, fled and even then you know,
saying is Austin going to be okay? To me, that
doesn't sound like the words of the intent of somebody
knowingly trying to kill somebody else. But it seemed to
fit more the narrative of what potentially happened where he
might have been defending himself. Was it reckless, Yes, and
(03:49):
it was with a knife, and it did end up,
you know, causing Austin Metcalf to lose his life. But
to me, it just didn't seem like that was the
intention of Carmelo Anthony.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
You know, we're just learning new information out of that
courtroom where the judge has now said they can consider
something called sudden passion during sentencing. What does that mean
if they can consider sudden passion and how would that
impact the sentencing?
Speaker 2 (04:13):
So sudden passion within Texas, now this is something that
allows the defendant already convicted of murder, so once they're
already convicted, to prove that he acted under the immediate
influence of sudden passion, or that sudden passion arose from
adequate cause, so kind of like heat of passion, which
(04:34):
people have heard of. But the burden is on the
defendant in this case to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence, which is much less than beyond all reasonable doubt.
A preponderance is more likely than not so fifty one percent.
But what that would do is essentially move this from
first degree sentencing to a second degree sentencing felony. So basically,
(04:58):
right now, with first degree Carmelo Anthony is facing five
to ninety nine years to life, but if sudden passion
comes in, this could be reduced to two to twenty years.
To be honest, I don't know how much success this
is going to have with this jury, you know, just
in looking at I mean the jury, they went for
(05:22):
the top charge. They didn't seem to have any sympathy.
They did not choose manslaughter, and so this is got
to remember this is the same jury who will now
be deciding this. And the difference is with self defense,
it was basically the defendant saying that the killing was justified.
But with sudden passion, the defendant is not saying I
(05:44):
was justified, but saying I was emotionally overwhelmed by the situation.
So that's okay, it's more likely that they could, you know,
decide for that. However, it's still going to be an
uphill battle from here, and yes, absolutely the prosecution is
going to fight this very hard.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
And you know, you brought up jurors and that was
like one of the things I really wanted to speak
with you about because there were no black jurors seated
in this case. We know Carmelo Anthony is a black man,
and when we hear the phrase jury of your peers,
we automatically think that that means that there should be
someone who looks like us on the jury. But is
that the case and did this jury meet the standard?
Speaker 2 (06:22):
That's not always the case, and in this case this
jury that were no black jurors, and even the defense
raised what's called a bats and challenge. They raised this,
but the prosecution was able to get around this by
saying that they struck the last three black jurors for
other cause that they were educators, which to me doesn't
(06:44):
really necessarily make sense because you would think those are
jurors that you would want because this happened at a school.
So is this a juror a jury of his peers?
You could look at it both ways. Not exactly, it's
not exactly. And I do think that played a major
part here because this case didn't seem to be about
(07:08):
race on its face. However, the fact that there were
no cameras allowed in kind of just let people blow
everything up on social media and they very much made
this about race. Like if you look outside the courthouse.
It's very much divided. This is an extremely polarizing case
and race is very very much involved here. So I
(07:29):
think it the outcome might have been different had there
been some black jurors.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Yes, I agree with you. But now that we know
there were no black jurors, could this be used as
an appeal or part of the appeal process later on?
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Yeah, absolutely, and I think that's probably what will happen.
I think that's probably one avenue. And I also think
that's part of the reason why the defense raised this
in the first place, raised the bats and challenges to
preserve it for appeal.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
And you know, I want to ask you about Austin's brother,
brother Hunter, because he was in that courtroom and he
watched his brother get stabbed. He actually was the one
who held him when he died, but he was not
called to testify. And from a legal strategy, why would
the prosecution leave someone like that off the stand?
Speaker 2 (08:15):
So I've wondered about this too, and I have my
thoughts on this is that, Yes, you would think he
would have been the most powerful witness for the prosecution
to call. So the fact that they did not call
him tells me there's something that they were worried about
the defense getting from him or twisting in a way.
(08:36):
So I wonder if maybe he was more aggressive than
his brother than Austin. I don't know, because it was reported,
you know, certain witnesses said that the two of them
were there together. I don't know, and who knows what
the defense could have elicited on cross examination, but that
could have harmed the prosecution's case. So's that's what I
(08:58):
think would be the only reason to not call him.
But then again, I mean, the prosecution's case was really
strong without him. I mean they you know, they eventually
won their side anyway without using him. But it does
make me wonder why they didn't call him. And what
we're missing because a lot of things people don't realize
(09:20):
is in a trial, we're only allowed the jury is
only allowed to consider the evidence that's brought in, But
that doesn't mean that's all of the evidence. There's a
lot of things that happened that the lawyers strategically don't
allow in or allow the jury to hear, and that
could This is a perfect example of that. I mean,
if if Hunter, if there was something that could have
(09:43):
hurt their case, it was up to the prosecution to say, well,
you know what, our case is strong even without this,
We don't necessarily need a slam dunk. We think we
have enough to win. And so that would be my
reasoning as to why they didn't call him. But I mean,
who knows.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
You know, earlier you brought up that Carmelo didn't take
the stand. The defense they only called six witnesses, and
as a defense attorney, walk us through that decision to
only call six witnesses and why maybe you wouldn't put
your client on the stand. When is when do you
keep them on? When do you take them all?
Speaker 2 (10:20):
This is a tough one because I really believe that
the reason they called so a few witnesses was I
think their strategy was initially they were going to have
Carmelo take the stand. I mean, as a defense attorney,
if you're, you know, using self defense, you need somebody
to explain why he was legally justified, because the whole
point of it is it turns on that he was
(10:42):
in fear of imminent bodily harm or death, and that's
the person that needs to explain how he felt and
to put the jurors in his shoes so they could
reasonably see, okay, this is how that happened. To not
have that the eyewitnesses basically they're looking at something that
they observed and they can attribute to you know, how
(11:04):
they might have felt. But it seems that Carmelo Anthony
was you know, the only person who you know, just
from what we're hearing, who reasonably believed that he was
in fear of harm. Like I haven't heard it in
any of the witnesses, And I think that's partially why
the result was what it was because the witnesses the
(11:25):
defense brought they didn't really provide anything that really helped
their case that much. They really didn't. So that's why
I was shocked that Carmelo did not take the stand,
because at that point they were losing, they were down
they but he was. Him taking the stand could have
been the one thing that turned it around. But then
(11:46):
this also brings up the point why didn't he take
the stand? And again it's his right and they say,
you know, the jurors are not supposed to hold that
against him, but in practice is at the case because
like I said, jurors they want to hear from the defendants,
especially if it's self defense. But maybe there was some
(12:07):
you know, things that he said that could have made
the prosecution could have twisted and made look a lot worse.
But like one thing, I wanted to know, just personally,
why did he have the knife at the track meet?
I think everybody wanted to know that, And I don't
know what his answer to that would have been. I
don't know if he had a good reasonable answer. Maybe
(12:30):
he didn't, but that's something I think could have helped. Again,
this is all speculation, but I really wonder why that
he didn't take this, especially because he had nothing to
lose at this point.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
You know, this whole case went from incident to verdict
in about fourteen months. Is this pretty fast for a
murder trial? Or is this about normal? About standard?
Speaker 2 (12:53):
It depends for this case. I think it was about right.
I think the trial was quite fast. I was surprised
by the speed of it. But yet at the same time,
if you really look at it and look at the evidence,
not necessarily because there wasn't a whole lot for the
(13:14):
defense to work with. That's that's really what this came
down to me, because you know, being a defense attorney,
you know, I'm always thinking about how would I defend
this case, and I think they did the best with
what they had, but they didn't have much. Like you
you have to look at the jury is going to
wonder number one, why he had that knife, and so
(13:35):
you would need to explain that that's you know, hurd
number one. And then number two is was he reasonably
in fear of his life like he because it's reported
that he was shoved. You know, nobody necessarily says it
was a punch. There was some touching, and it could
be as much as a shove. Now how do you
(13:58):
respond with lee force to a shove? And you know,
Austin Metcalf was not armed clearly, So I think this
was really really difficult for the defense, especially in the
absence of you know, Carmelo Anthony taking the stand. So
but it was very fast and the verdict was very fast.
(14:20):
They've already started the sentencing phase like immediately, and it's
the it's the same jury and from what I understand,
they're being sequestered until they come up with the sentence.
So it's possible we could hear by the end of
the day still.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
And we want to thank Attorney David O'tanga for joining
us today on Front Page and breaking down the Carmelo
Anthony Brio again. He has been found guilty of murder.
We will continue watching the sentencing phase. Please follow David
on Instagram and x at David Otanga, Mimi Brown and
this is Front Page. This podcast was brought to you
(14:57):
by the Black Effect Podcast Network
Well, the verdict is in. Carmelo Anthony has been found
guilty of murder. A Calling County jury took less than
three hours, and now that same jury is deciding how
many years he'll spend behind bars. This case has had
the whole country divided over race, over self defense, and
over what really happened under that tent. Joining us here
(00:25):
on front page to help us break it down and
understand what happened in that courtroom is attorney David O'toga.
He's a Harvard law graduate and legal analysis and David,
it's good to see you. Thank you for joining us today.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Thank you for having me, me me, I appreciate it absolutely.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
So let's just jump right in. There's so much information here.
A jury, they deliberated less than three hours and they
came back with a guilty verdict. What is this deliberation
that fast usually tell us, Well.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
They pretty much had their minds made up. For me,
I think that it came down to Carmelo Anthony not
taking the stand because this is a self defense case,
and a lot of times, just you know, in my
experience as being a lawyer, a lot of times the
defendant needs to take the stand. It is their right
(01:16):
not to, but jurors often want to hear from the
defendant in his or her own words, what happened. And
there was a long delay yesterday, some three hours, and
they thought that the defense was, you know, preparing Carmelo
Anthony to take the stand, and he ended up not
doing that and they rested their case, which was surprising
(01:39):
to me because just in following this, I'm not sure
that they raised enough reasonable doubt about this being self defense.
I wasn't convinced, like I felt, Carmelo needed to take
the stand, and I think that probably played a large
part in this, where the jury kind of already had
their mind made up, and in not hearing from him,
(02:02):
it made it simpler, it kind of depersonalized it. Just
in my experience, and of course I'm just speculating, but
this is something that I kind of feel probably played
into this.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
And to that point, the jury, though they had three
options right not guilty, manslaughter was one of them, or
murdered or what does it mean that they skip right
past manslaughter?
Speaker 2 (02:22):
In Texas, you just have to prove that the killing
was intentional, or that Carmelo Anthony knowingly killed Austin metcalf
and I mean that was pretty straightforward. So then once
they had to determine whether or not the self defense
was reasonable, I think that was straightforward. However, I still
feel like manslaughter fit more perfectly just off of what
(02:46):
I've heard, And you know, you have to take into
account these were teenagers, you know, seventeen years old. Carmelo
Anthony did not have a criminal record, was a three
point eight GPA like for and I believe he was
captain of the Fall team track Star like he was
a good kid up until this point. So it kind
(03:06):
of seemed like it was more reckless. And because even
his statements directly after the fact, this was a pocket knife,
which it's being reported a three inch blade, I think
the whole thing was five inches, and it was just
one one wound. He just reached out and stabbed one time,
so it wasn't like he stabbed over and over and
(03:28):
over and then you know, fled and even then you know,
saying is Austin going to be okay? To me, that
doesn't sound like the words of the intent of somebody
knowingly trying to kill somebody else. But it seemed to
fit more the narrative of what potentially happened where he
might have been defending himself. Was it reckless, Yes, and
(03:49):
it was with a knife, and it did end up,
you know, causing Austin Metcalf to lose his life. But
to me, it just didn't seem like that was the
intention of Carmelo Anthony.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
You know, we're just learning new information out of that
courtroom where the judge has now said they can consider
something called sudden passion during sentencing. What does that mean
if they can consider sudden passion and how would that
impact the sentencing?
Speaker 2 (04:13):
So sudden passion within Texas, now this is something that
allows the defendant already convicted of murder, so once they're
already convicted, to prove that he acted under the immediate
influence of sudden passion, or that sudden passion arose from
adequate cause, so kind of like heat of passion, which
(04:34):
people have heard of. But the burden is on the
defendant in this case to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence, which is much less than beyond all reasonable doubt.
A preponderance is more likely than not so fifty one percent.
But what that would do is essentially move this from
first degree sentencing to a second degree sentencing felony. So basically,
(04:58):
right now, with first degree Carmelo Anthony is facing five
to ninety nine years to life, but if sudden passion
comes in, this could be reduced to two to twenty years.
To be honest, I don't know how much success this
is going to have with this jury, you know, just
in looking at I mean the jury, they went for
(05:22):
the top charge. They didn't seem to have any sympathy.
They did not choose manslaughter, and so this is got
to remember this is the same jury who will now
be deciding this. And the difference is with self defense,
it was basically the defendant saying that the killing was justified.
But with sudden passion, the defendant is not saying I
(05:44):
was justified, but saying I was emotionally overwhelmed by the situation.
So that's okay, it's more likely that they could, you know,
decide for that. However, it's still going to be an
uphill battle from here, and yes, absolutely the prosecution is
going to fight this very hard.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
And you know, you brought up jurors and that was
like one of the things I really wanted to speak
with you about because there were no black jurors seated
in this case. We know Carmelo Anthony is a black man,
and when we hear the phrase jury of your peers,
we automatically think that that means that there should be
someone who looks like us on the jury. But is
that the case and did this jury meet the standard?
Speaker 2 (06:22):
That's not always the case, and in this case this
jury that were no black jurors, and even the defense
raised what's called a bats and challenge. They raised this,
but the prosecution was able to get around this by
saying that they struck the last three black jurors for
other cause that they were educators, which to me doesn't
(06:44):
really necessarily make sense because you would think those are
jurors that you would want because this happened at a school.
So is this a juror a jury of his peers?
You could look at it both ways. Not exactly, it's
not exactly. And I do think that played a major
part here because this case didn't seem to be about
(07:08):
race on its face. However, the fact that there were
no cameras allowed in kind of just let people blow
everything up on social media and they very much made
this about race. Like if you look outside the courthouse.
It's very much divided. This is an extremely polarizing case
and race is very very much involved here. So I
(07:29):
think it the outcome might have been different had there
been some black jurors.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Yes, I agree with you. But now that we know
there were no black jurors, could this be used as
an appeal or part of the appeal process later on?
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Yeah, absolutely, and I think that's probably what will happen.
I think that's probably one avenue. And I also think
that's part of the reason why the defense raised this
in the first place, raised the bats and challenges to
preserve it for appeal.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
And you know, I want to ask you about Austin's brother,
brother Hunter, because he was in that courtroom and he
watched his brother get stabbed. He actually was the one
who held him when he died, but he was not
called to testify. And from a legal strategy, why would
the prosecution leave someone like that off the stand?
Speaker 2 (08:15):
So I've wondered about this too, and I have my
thoughts on this is that, Yes, you would think he
would have been the most powerful witness for the prosecution
to call. So the fact that they did not call
him tells me there's something that they were worried about
the defense getting from him or twisting in a way.
(08:36):
So I wonder if maybe he was more aggressive than
his brother than Austin. I don't know, because it was reported,
you know, certain witnesses said that the two of them
were there together. I don't know, and who knows what
the defense could have elicited on cross examination, but that
could have harmed the prosecution's case. So's that's what I
(08:58):
think would be the only reason to not call him.
But then again, I mean, the prosecution's case was really
strong without him. I mean they you know, they eventually
won their side anyway without using him. But it does
make me wonder why they didn't call him. And what
we're missing because a lot of things people don't realize
(09:20):
is in a trial, we're only allowed the jury is
only allowed to consider the evidence that's brought in, But
that doesn't mean that's all of the evidence. There's a
lot of things that happened that the lawyers strategically don't
allow in or allow the jury to hear, and that
could This is a perfect example of that. I mean,
if if Hunter, if there was something that could have
(09:43):
hurt their case, it was up to the prosecution to say, well,
you know what, our case is strong even without this,
We don't necessarily need a slam dunk. We think we
have enough to win. And so that would be my
reasoning as to why they didn't call him. But I mean,
who knows.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
You know, earlier you brought up that Carmelo didn't take
the stand. The defense they only called six witnesses, and
as a defense attorney, walk us through that decision to
only call six witnesses and why maybe you wouldn't put
your client on the stand. When is when do you
keep them on? When do you take them all?
Speaker 2 (10:20):
This is a tough one because I really believe that
the reason they called so a few witnesses was I
think their strategy was initially they were going to have
Carmelo take the stand. I mean, as a defense attorney,
if you're, you know, using self defense, you need somebody
to explain why he was legally justified, because the whole
point of it is it turns on that he was
(10:42):
in fear of imminent bodily harm or death, and that's
the person that needs to explain how he felt and
to put the jurors in his shoes so they could
reasonably see, okay, this is how that happened. To not
have that the eyewitnesses basically they're looking at something that
they observed and they can attribute to you know, how
(11:04):
they might have felt. But it seems that Carmelo Anthony
was you know, the only person who you know, just
from what we're hearing, who reasonably believed that he was
in fear of harm. Like I haven't heard it in
any of the witnesses, And I think that's partially why
the result was what it was because the witnesses the
(11:25):
defense brought they didn't really provide anything that really helped
their case that much. They really didn't. So that's why
I was shocked that Carmelo did not take the stand,
because at that point they were losing, they were down
they but he was. Him taking the stand could have
been the one thing that turned it around. But then
(11:46):
this also brings up the point why didn't he take
the stand? And again it's his right and they say,
you know, the jurors are not supposed to hold that
against him, but in practice is at the case because
like I said, jurors they want to hear from the defendants,
especially if it's self defense. But maybe there was some
(12:07):
you know, things that he said that could have made
the prosecution could have twisted and made look a lot worse.
But like one thing, I wanted to know, just personally,
why did he have the knife at the track meet?
I think everybody wanted to know that, And I don't
know what his answer to that would have been. I
don't know if he had a good reasonable answer. Maybe
(12:30):
he didn't, but that's something I think could have helped. Again,
this is all speculation, but I really wonder why that
he didn't take this, especially because he had nothing to
lose at this point.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
You know, this whole case went from incident to verdict
in about fourteen months. Is this pretty fast for a
murder trial? Or is this about normal? About standard?
Speaker 2 (12:53):
It depends for this case. I think it was about right.
I think the trial was quite fast. I was surprised
by the speed of it. But yet at the same time,
if you really look at it and look at the evidence,
not necessarily because there wasn't a whole lot for the
(13:14):
defense to work with. That's that's really what this came
down to me, because you know, being a defense attorney,
you know, I'm always thinking about how would I defend
this case, and I think they did the best with
what they had, but they didn't have much. Like you
you have to look at the jury is going to
wonder number one, why he had that knife, and so
(13:35):
you would need to explain that that's you know, hurd
number one. And then number two is was he reasonably
in fear of his life like he because it's reported
that he was shoved. You know, nobody necessarily says it
was a punch. There was some touching, and it could
be as much as a shove. Now how do you
(13:58):
respond with lee force to a shove? And you know,
Austin Metcalf was not armed clearly, So I think this
was really really difficult for the defense, especially in the
absence of you know, Carmelo Anthony taking the stand. So
but it was very fast and the verdict was very fast.
(14:20):
They've already started the sentencing phase like immediately, and it's
the it's the same jury and from what I understand,
they're being sequestered until they come up with the sentence.
So it's possible we could hear by the end of
the day still.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
And we want to thank Attorney David O'tanga for joining
us today on Front Page and breaking down the Carmelo
Anthony Brio again. He has been found guilty of murder.
We will continue watching the sentencing phase. Please follow David
on Instagram and x at David Otanga, Mimi Brown and
this is Front Page. This podcast was brought to you
(14:57):
by the Black Effect Podcast Network
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.