Robert Nathaniel Jones v. State, 431 S.W.3d 149

Robert Nathaniel Jones, an African-American, was convicted of felony possession; after voir dire the State used peremptory strikes so that no African-American served on the jury; Jones raised a Batson challenge to at least one strike (veniremember no. 24).
The venire initially had ~60 panelists; after challenges for cause 32 remained, with three identified African-American members in the record; the State used multiple peremptory strikes eliminating the identified African-American panelists.
The State explained its strikes were race-neutral: it eliminated veniremembers who rated local law enforcement a "6" or lower, then proceeded to strike those who rated law enforcement a "7" in panel-number order until it ran out of strikes.
Veniremembers 8, 13, 24, and 28 gave identical answers on the disputed voir dire questions (drug-law view, marijuana prosecution, law-enforcement rating of 7, and silence on burden-of-proof question); the State struck only no. 24 (an African-American) and seated the others (non‑African‑American).
The trial court denied the Batson challenge; on appeal the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found the State s proffered reason contradicted by the record and disparately applied.
Court held the trial court clearly erred in finding the State s explanation genuine, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State used peremptory strikes based on race (Batson claim)	Jones argued the State struck an African-American panelist (no. 24) though the State's stated reason (law‑enforcement rating strategy) applied equally to non‑black panelists who were seated	State argued strikes were race‑neutral: it struck all who rated law enforcement 6 or lower, then struck 7s in panel order until strikes were exhausted	Court held Batson violation: State's explanation was not genuine and was disparately applied; reversed and remanded

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (constitutional prohibition on race‑based peremptory strikes)
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (comparative analysis and factors for identifying pretextual race-neutral reasons)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (comparative analysis showing prosecutor's stated reason was pretext)
Nieto v. State, 365 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (clear‑error review focuses on genuineness of prosecutor's explanation)
Whitsey v. State, 796 S.W.2d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (trial court must assess genuineness of race‑neutral reasons)
Moore v. State, 265 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (prosecutor's contradicted explanation supports finding of pretext)
Watkins v. State, 245 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (appellate review may examine voir dire record in entirety for Batson analysis)
Davis v. Fisk Elec. Co., 268 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. 2008) (even one racially motivated peremptory strike invalidates jury selection)