Jamey Justin Smith v. State, 06-14-00041-CR

Two prosecutions (Cause Nos. 28,911 & 28,912) in Hunt County, Texas, with Jamey Justin Smith as appellant and the State as appellee.
Trial court found that Smith used eight peremptory strikes to remove female venire members to influence punishment phase, enabling reinstatement of six women on the panel.
The court entered findings that Smith’s reasons for striking those women were pretextual, discriminating on the basis of gender.
Trial defense and state counsel did not view Appeal Defense Exhibit 2 during voir dire or Batson hearing; Exhibit 2 was not in the reporter’s record.
Trial defense used Defense Exhibit 1 (jury cards/questionnaires) to support voir dire analysis; the court relied on record evidence and demeanor in evaluating discriminatory intent.
Court ultimately reinstated the six women to the jury and Smith was sentenced in punishment phase; the State moved to affirm the sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court properly find purposeful gender discrimination under Batson?	State asserts prima facie showing of discrimination.	Smith contends neutral reasons were legitimate and non-pretextual.	Yes; court upheld discrimination finding and reinstated女性 jurors.
Were the neutral reasons for striking the female venire members pretextual?	State argues reasons were pretextual to keep women off jury.	Smith argues reasons were valid, non-pretextual explanations.	Yes; the trial court found the reasons pretextual and discriminative.
Did appellate counsel ineffective assistance of counsel based on not reviewing Appeal Defense Exhibit 2?	Appellant claims Exhibit 2 could have aided strategy.	Both parties agreed not to review Exhibit 2; strategic decision.	No; counsel was not ineffective given the joint strategic choice and record.
Did the State’s Batson ruling require remand or affirmance given reinstatement and sentences?	State seeks affirmation.	N/A or argues potential errors.	affirmed; sentences affirmed.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibition on peremptory strikes based on gender (equal protection))
J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 27 (1994) (gender-based peremptory challenges prohibited)
Snyder v. La., 552 U.S. 472 (2008) (three-step Batson framework; deference to trial court on intent)
Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (article on appellate review of discriminatory intent)
Gibson v. State, 144 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (reaffirmation of discriminatory intent standard)
Batiste v. State, 888 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (Batson framework in Texas context)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (ineffective assistance standard applied to appellate context)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (record-based inquiry required for ineffectiveness)
Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (standard for reviewing counsel performance)
Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (deference to trial court on credibility and demeanor)
Johnson v. State, 959 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997) (counsel performance review)
Synder v. La., 552 U.S. 472 (2008) (see Snyder (duplicate))