House Democrats are raising concerns about how race and jury selection may have impacted the guilty verdict in the Karmelo Anthony case, with several arguing the verdict highlights the racism they believe exists in the criminal justice system.

“A travesty, two lives ruined, and what struck me most is that you had an all-White jury,” Rep. Christian Menefee, D-Texas, said when asked his thoughts on the guilty verdict.

“You had preemptive strikes that were used in order to achieve an all-White jury.”

After Anthony was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Tuesday for the stabbing and killing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a high school track event, many activists and Democratic lawmakers have claimed the trial to be unfair and racist. 

Many are claiming the jurors were all White, and that this contributed to the rejection of Anthony’s self-defense claim.

“Juries should represent the diversity of this country, and if a White kid was convicted of murder and it was an all-Black jury that did the conviction, people would say this is patently unfair,” Menefee said.

“So why should it be fair if it’s the other way around?”

But sources close to the trial told Fox News Digital that there were three jurors who were racial minorities. They said that of the 18 total jurors, including alternates, six were minorities. Additionally, four Black men testified in defense of Metcalf, saying Anthony was not provoked in any way to justify stabbing the 17-year-old.

Supporters of Anthony claim that he stabbed Metcalf as an act of self-defense, arguing he did not receive a fair trial. Some activists and Democratic lawmakers have called for further review of the case and urged Anthony to pursue an appeal.

“Here is a case where a young man certainly appears to have been being attacked and defended himself,” Rep. Troy Carter, D-La., said about the case.

“It does bring in light the imbalance in our judicial system, as it relates to African Americans and people of color” Carter continued. “And that’s a shame. So hopefully, there’ll be an opportunity for some appeal and some further discussion.”

“Case after case, after case you see that if it is a young Black person, they’re not allowed to be fearful, they’re not allowed self-defense, they don’t get the same standard ground opportunities that other people get,” Menefee said. “But then other races do.”

Some lawmakers were less likely to directly blame the trial as unfair due to race, but were still sympathetic toward Anthony and were not blatantly opposed to the idea of looking further into the evidence in the case despite a verdict already being made.

“We’ve got to stop this loss and the killing of these young children, number one,” Rep. Jonathan Jackson, D-Ill., said. “First of all, they need to reopen it and all the evidence needs to come forward.”

“I think it’s an unfortunate circumstance all the way around,” Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Ala., said.

He continued, “You have one young man who was killed. His family will never get to be with him again. You have another young man who, for all intents and purposes, thrown a lot of years of his life. A lot of the years of this life. If he does 35 years, he’ll be 50 — in his 50s — when he gets out. And it’s just totally unfortunate.”

Throughout their criticism of the verdict, several lawmakers framed the case as part of a larger debate over race, self-defense claims and equal treatment for minorities under the law.

“The American justice system does not work equally for everybody,” Menefee said.