Winzer, Henry Andre, PD-1174-15

Background

Defendant Henry Winzer (African American) was tried for aggravated assault on a peace officer after a confrontation in which his son was shot and killed; jury was entirely white after prosecution used three peremptory strikes on the only Black veniremembers.
At voir dire the State explained its strikes: it struck teachers as a class (including veniremember Long) as allegedly "more sympathetic," and it struck veniremembers Mitchell and Pickron for purported "issues with law enforcement" or belief the system is unfair.
Defense lodged a Batson objection at trial and renewed it in a motion for new trial; the trial court overruled the objection and denied the motion without written findings.
On direct appeal the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the State gave race-neutral reasons and that Grant v. State limited the weight of lack-of-questioning as evidence of pretext.
Winzer petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review, arguing the Court of Appeals misread precedent (Emerson and Whitsey) and improperly allowed group-based, pretextual explanations for the peremptory strikes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State’s strikes of the three Black veniremembers violated Batson	Winzer: strikes were racially motivated; State’s reasons (teacher = sympathetic; "issues with police") were pretextual and not supported by voir dire; Emerson/Whitsey bar group-based occupation stereotyping without individualized inquiry	State: provided facially race-neutral reasons applied across races (struck all teachers; struck those expressing distrust of law enforcement); Grant and deferential review mean lack-of-questioning is not dispositive	Court of Appeals: affirmed trial court — State’s explanations were race-neutral and not clearly erroneous; Batson challenge denied
Whether Emerson and Whitsey remain controlling law (i.e., occupation/group-trait explanations require individualized support)	Winzer: Emerson/Whitsey require that group-trait explanations be shown to apply to the juror specifically; the Court of Appeals improperly treated those cases as overruled	State/Ct. of Appeals: relied on Grant and subsequent authority to limit the dispositive effect of lack-of-questioning and give deference to trial-court credibility findings	Court of Appeals: treated Grant as limiting the weight of lack-of-questioning and affirmed; asked CCA to clarify if Emerson/Whitsey still control
Whether disparate treatment of similarly situated non-Black jurors shows pretext	Winzer: white jurors with negative police experiences were not struck while Mitchell and Pickron were—showing pretext and discriminatory intent	State: those white jurors were not similarly situated in degree or explanation after individual questioning; differences justified selective strikes	Court of Appeals: found jurors were not identically situated; disparate-treatment argument did not overcome trial court’s credibility findings
Effect of double strike (both parties struck Pickron) on Batson claim	Winzer: the double strike does not defeat showing of a pattern of eliminating Black jurors and is evidence of intent	State/Ct.: defendant also struck Pickron; double strike makes that particular strike unsuitable as Batson basis and harmless	Court of Appeals: treated Pickron double-strike as not a ground for reversal and focused on Long and Mitchell

Key Cases Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits race-based peremptory strikes under Equal Protection)
Emerson v. State, 851 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (occupation-based group-trait explanations impermissible absent showing trait applies to juror)
Whitsey v. State, 796 S.W.2d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (rejects peremptory strikes based on group stereotyping without individualized support)
Grant v. State, 325 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (held lack-of-questioning is a non-exhaustive factor and trial-court credibility deserves deference)
Blackman v. State, 414 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (articulates Batson three-step framework and burden of persuasion on challenger)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (facially race-neutral reasons suffice at step two; persuasiveness matters at step three)
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (disparate treatment of similarly situated nonblack jurors is evidence of purposeful discrimination)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008) (appellate courts must carefully review trial-court credibility determinations in Batson context)