United States v. Jarvis Clayborn -Western District of Tennessee at Memphis

Circuit 6Jul 29, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 69/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed

Jarvis Clayborn sought to suppress a post-Miranda confession obtained at a police station after officers had earlier questioned him in a patrol car without Miranda warnings. The Sixth Circuit held that the later statement was admissible because the three-hour gap, change in location, and different interrogator cured any taint, and it therefore affirmed the district court’s denial of Clayborn’s suppression motion.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Which analytical test governs admissibility of a post-warning statement when officers use a two-step 'mid-stream Miranda' interrogation technique after Missouri v. Seibert (plurality test vs. Justice Kennedy concurrence test).

Circuit Positions

Circuit 6(this circuit)

Apply Seibert plurality’s objective five-factor test (intent of officers irrelevant).

Circuit 2Circuit 4Circuit 5Circuit 7Circuit 8Circuit 9Circuit 10Circuit 11

Apply Justice Kennedy’s intent-based test, suppressing statements only if two-step questioning was deliberate.

Conflict Summary

The Sixth Circuit applies the Seibert plurality’s objective, five-factor test that focuses on whether the mid-stream Miranda warning gave the suspect a real choice, regardless of police intent. At least eight other circuits apply Justice Kennedy’s narrower intent-based test and suppress post-warning statements only when officers deliberately employ the two-step technique to undermine Miranda.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Jarvis Clayborn
Appellee:United States of America