674 F. App'x 359
5th Cir.2017Background
- Arthur Williams, a Black defendant, was convicted of capital murder in Texas (1983) for killing a white police detective and sentenced to death; postconviction litigation extended through state and federal courts.
- At trial the prosecutor exercised six peremptory strikes against Black prospective jurors; the seated jury had no Black members.
- State courts, after evidentiary hearings, credited the prosecutor Keno Henderson’s race-neutral explanations and denied relief; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted that view.
- Williams sought federal habeas relief alleging Batson violations and also argued a broader pattern-and-practice claim against the Harris County DA’s office; the federal district court denied Batson relief under AEDPA deference and declined to grant a COA.
- Williams applied to this court for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) solely to appeal the Batson claim; the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court’s resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams waived his Batson claim by inadequate briefing | Williams contends he preserved the claim and alternatively argues side-by-side comparisons are not required | Respondent argues Rule 28 defects and failure to provide side-by-side juror comparisons amounts to waiver | No waiver found; brief was adequate enough to preserve the Batson claim for review |
| Whether a COA should issue to permit appeal of Batson claim under AEDPA | Williams says jurists could debate the district court’s Batson step-two and step-three findings (including reliance on Rosales pattern evidence) | State says Williams failed to particularize attacks on race-neutral reasons and AEDPA requires deference to state fact-findings | COA denied: Williams did not make the substantial showing required that jurists could disagree |
| Batson step two — validity of prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations | Williams argues the voir dire record does not support Henderson’s explanations and he failed to understand which struck jurors were implicated | State contends the explanations were facially race-neutral and the proffer need not be persuasive under Purkett | Court: Williams failed to identify specific inconsistencies; step-two challenge denied |
| Batson step three — purposeful discrimination (pattern/practice evidence) | Williams claims combination of Rosales pattern evidence, six Black strikes, and all-white jury suffice to show purposeful discrimination | State argues Williams offered only conclusory allegations and failed to rebut state courts’ factual findings by clear and convincing evidence under AEDPA | Court: district court did not clearly err; with AEDPA deference Williams’ step-three showing was insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race-based peremptory strikes under Equal Protection)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (use of statistical and comparative juror evidence in Batson inquiries)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standard for COA and examination of underlying merits on habeas review)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (COA standard where district court denied relief)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (race-neutral explanation need only be facially valid at Batson step two)
- Terrazas-Carrasco v. United States, 861 F.2d 93 (Fifth Circuit standard of review for Batson rulings — clear error)
- United States v. Montgomery, 210 F.3d 446 (describes Batson three-step burden-shifting framework)