United States v. James McWhorter, 515 F. App'x 511

In 2006, Sparta, Tennessee police investigated counterfeit checks; a Floyd’s clerk identified McWhorter from a photo array.
Officer Selby sought an arrest warrant; the affidavit misstated identification (Franky Floyd) due to Selby’s misrecitation and clerical confusion, while omitting the actual identifying witness.
Metro arrested McWhorter on the White County warrant and Mirandized him; during questioning he sought assurances about his wife’s case and cooperation led to further inculpatory statements and a search of his home.
McWhorter was later interviewed by state and federal agents in 2007; he moved to suppress the November 8 statements, the 2006–07 interviews, the home seizure, and related evidence.
At trial in 2010, McWhorter was convicted on five counts and sentenced to 124 months; the district court denied suppression, acquittal, and new-trial motions, which McWhorter appealed.
The appeals blend challenges to warrant validity, suppression rulings, a conspiracy count, a Brady claim for a new trial, and sentencing enhancements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the arrest warrant valid despite a misstatement?	McWhorter asserts material misstatement voids probable cause	McWhorter contends misstatement undermines warrant; demands Franks hearing	Probable cause supported arrest; good-faith exception applies; no Franks showing
Were November 8, 2006 statements voluntary and Miranda-compliant?	Statements were coerced or improper after invocation of rights	Statements voluntary; no Edwards violation; Shatzer applied later	Statements admissible; no Edwards violation; Shatzer-like break allowed post-transfer
Did the district court err in denying acquittal on count five (conspiracy/identity theft)?	Vincent’s credibility insufficient to sustain conviction	Evidence supports conspiracy/identity-theft charge	Court affirmed denial of acquittal; credibility for jury to decide
Was McWhorter entitled to a new trial based on alleged Brady material?	New video evidence withheld by the prosecution	Video evidence exists or could have been found; Brady material	No Brady violation; district court did not abuse discretion
Were sentencing enhancements and prior-crime points properly applied?	Challenged authentication-feature enhancement, prior-conviction point, and burden of proposed commission findings	Enhancements proper; prior Missouri conviction similar; Commission findings not required	All sentencing challenges rejected; guidelines applied properly

United States v. Calandrella, 605 F.2d 236 (6th Cir. 1979) (probable-cause suffices for arrest; warrant not always required)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule applies)
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) (good-faith reliance on warrant despite defect)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250 (2010) (unambiguous invocation required to assert right to remain silent)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (right to counsel forbids interrogation after invocation)
Maryland v. Shatzer, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010) (14-day break allows re-interrogation with rights waived; custody not coercive)
Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990) (cannot reinitiate questioning after counsel requested)
United States v. Johnson, 351 F.3d 254 (6th Cir. 2003) (three-part test for voluntariness of confessions)
United States v. Wrice, 954 F.2d 406 (6th Cir. 1992) (coercion considerations in voluntariness)
United States v. Keeton, 101 F.3d 48 (6th Cir. 1996) (standard for denying motions to acquit)
United States v. Bradshaw, 102 F.3d 204 (6th Cir. 1996) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
United States v. Graham, 622 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2010) (credibility of witnesses for jury resolution)
United States v. Jones, 399 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2005) (new-trial standards and Brady considerations)