What the Nolan Wells & Karmelo Anthony Cases Remind Us
Black boys deserve protection from the legal system. When the system that is supposed to protect and serve our children fails them and chooses condemnation instead of impartially , we are left asking- Who does the law serve? When we say Black boys deserve protection from the legal system, we mean it in two significant ways.
First, we mean Black boys deserve the protection of the law–its protective arm. This is the promise that when a person is harmed, the state or government will investigate, pursue the truth, and hold accountable anyone who caused that harm fairly. It is the role of the police, medical examiner, prosecutor, and jury. It is the idea that the law exists to stand in between people –especially children– and danger. It is the idea that a Black boy’s life is worth the same urgent pursuit of answers as any other child’s.
The second is protection from the law–its prosecuting arm. This is the recognition that the same system that is supposed to provide justice for all is also a source of harm upon Black children. It has the power to charge, try, convict, and imprison. The inconvenient truth is that that power has never been applied to Black boys with the same restraint, willingness to see them as a child, or presumption of innocence. When the law sees a Black boy, it most often fails to see and consider them as a person with hopes, fears, and worthy of humanity. Protection from the law means shielding Black children from a system that punishes them more harshly, tries them as adults (actually or effectively), and denies them the mercy it grants so freely to others.
These failures are counterparts. One arm fails to protect Black boys when they are victims. The other arm over-punishes them when they are accused. Both grow from the same root–the refusal to see Black children as human and worthy children. This is the betrayal at the heart of both the death of Nolan Wells and the life of Karmelo Anthony.
The Case of Nolan Wells
Nolan Wells was 18-years-old when he went to Horn Island with friends on the Fourth of July 2026. He never came home. His body was found two days later. A grand jury concluded that his death was “consistent with drowning,” and declined to proceed. But what we know is that both the state medical examiner and an independent pathologist hired by Nolan’s family ruled the cause and manner of death is undetermined. We know there was no water in his lungs, no bloating consistent with signs of drowning, and there was bruising on the back of his head. These things continue to go unexplained. “Undetermined” does not mean “nothing happened.” It means they, scientifically, do not know. But what the system has chosen to take that undetermined to mean they do not need to act.
Here, the protective arm of the law did not peruse what it needed to move forward. Ben Crump put it plainly, “This grand jury result leaves us with more questions than answers.” Reverend Al Sharpton went even further, “We will not confuse the absence of an indictment with the presence of answer.” The day after the grand jury failed to return an indictment, Nolan’s mother, Christine Wells Wonsley, called things for what they are: “last night was a reminder that our son’s life does not matter to those who hold positions that are supposed to serve and protect the public.” Now, the Wells family and the Black community are left with the same question we ask every time this happens - When Black boys are killed in suspicious circumstances, who can we turn to for justice?
Far too often, the answer is no one. The system that should have protected Nolan Wells is centimeters away from closing his file. This system of accountability has said there is nothing to do as it so often has done in the countless historical examples of injustice for Black boys. So we fight to keep Nolan from becoming another unanswered question in a long history that Mississippi knows too well.
The Case of Karmelo Anthony
Another Black teenager, Karmelo Anthony, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years in prison for stabbing a white student at a track meet. Karmelo admitted to the stabbing but as he acted in self-defense. The jury rejected his self-defense claim in just three hours. His attorneys argued he was denied a fair trial, that his right to testify was compromised by an undisclosed agreement between attorneys, and that the courtroom was closed to public scrutiny. Yet and still, a judge denied his motion for a new trial.
One question that remains is: Who is the right of self-defense awarded to? The law says that self-defense is available to anyone who reasonably believes that they are in imminent danger of death or serious harm. But reasonableness is measured by a jury and juries are not full of empty chairs. They are filled with people who bring with them every stereotype, prejudice, and unconscious association that American culture has embedded in all of us. Many are partial to the association of Black boys with danger, aggression, and violence. So when a Black boy claims he was so afraid that he needed to defend himself, does the law actually believe him or does it see a predator who provoked his own fate?
Like all of us , Karmelo is not perfect. But why do ck boys have to be perfect to deserve justice? Why don’t Black boys deserve the same presumption of innocence and compassion that we extend to white children without question?
In contrast, 61-year-old Chikei “Ricky” Chow who was acquitted under a self-defense claim after murdering Black 14-year-old Cyrus Belton. After mistakenly believing Cyrus stole water bottles, Chow chased Cyrus yards away from his store and shot him in the back. Witnesses testified to not seeing anything in Cyrus’ hands, yet Chow claimed he shot Cyrus after he allegedly pointed a gun at Chow’s son. Chow was acquitted on all counts.
The difference is stark. Karmelo, a Black teenager, claimed self-defense and it took a jury three hours to reject it. He got 35 years. Yet, Ricky Chow, a 61 year-old store owner, claimed self-defense after he chased a child over 100 yards and shot him in the back. A jury acquitted him. Both illustrate the complexities that come when a Black boy is on either side of the aisle in the criminal legal system.
That begs the question - Who is the right of self-defense awarded to? It seems that it's awarded to the person whose fear is recognized by a system built on the presumption that Black boys are dangerous and everyone else is simply defending themselves from them. The prosecuting arm of the system continuously fails to see Black boys as children, whether they are the victim or accused, at all. It seems that Black boys, whether they are the victim or accused, are guilty until proven otherwise.
Ultimately, we are left with two Black boys on both sides of the same coin who were failed by the protective arm of the law. Nolan Wells was failed by the protective arm of the system that was supposed to find out what happened to him. Karmelo Anthony was failed by the prosecuting arm that was supposed to judge him fairly - to consider his fear as reasonable or see him as a child . Neither boy got what the law promises and neither family got justice.Until we demand a legal system that protects Black boys from harm and protects Black boys from itself, we will continue burying and locking up Black boys, and unconscionably calling it justice.
By Kayla Dorancy, Scholar, on behalf of the Social Activism & Outreach Committee
Edited by BGT, Esq., Founder & CEO
