Did the detective make improper inducements?

Question

Cindi Rush, a 20-year old woman with a 9th grade education and no involvement in the criminal justice system was arrested for first-degree murder as part of a household robbery. She was read Miranda warnings, interrogated, and confessed. During interrogation she gave several versions of what happened but always maintained that she did not pull the trigger. Parts of the interrogation transcript read:
Rush: How, why am I bein' charged with first degree murder? Detective. Darlin', darlin', well, until we get all the details as to exactly what happened, how things laid out, there's no way we can get around this.
* * * Det.. Well darlin', you're a part of the whole thing until we can get all the details as exactly what happened. We can't narrow the scope down until we know every little detail about what happened. * * * Until that happens, and we know exactly what happened that day and why it happened, I've got a warrant for ya for first degree murder. Now - Rush. I didn't kill anybody - * * * Det. Cindi, I'm not saying you did. I know you didn't. I know you didn't. And that seems like a whole lot, a huge burden on your shoulders about this. But I know you're part of it. I know that you played a part in this because there's no other way. There's no other connection to that family other than through you. There's no other connection. Now, you can sit here and take the ride, take the charge - * * * Det. Now, ya know, there, there could be some salvation here. . . . Neither one of you pulled the trigger in this. Neither one of you went inside. Neither one of you are the person that Jeffrey Gilbert was. So let's get it all out of exactly what happened and why it happened so we can resolve this and get it over with. But you sittin' here lyin' to me is not gonna do it.
A confession induced by police threats, promises, or inducements render the confession involuntary and inadmissible. Mere exhortations to tell the truth and appeals to a suspect's inner conscience, in and of themselves, are not improper promises.

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

YES
Some of the detective's remarks were mere exhortations to tell the truth. Others, however, were implied inducements that it would be legally advantageous to Rush, by reducing the charge she was facing, if she would reveal all that she knew about the events leading up to the murder. The detective suggested that there could be "a way around this." By saying that he had "a warrant for her for first degree murder" he suggested that if Rush cooperated, the first degree murder charge might go away. This inducement, i.e., suggesting he could assist her in reducing her first degree murder charge if she revealed details, was further made by two references that strongly implied a special benefit from speaking: (1) that there could be "salvation" if she told the truth, but, if not, she would remain in "major trouble"; and (2) that if Rush gave details, "we can resolve this and get it over with." These comments went beyond mere pleas to honesty and good conscience. A reasonable person of Rush's age, education, and experience would have taken the detective's urgings to mean that her legal position would be improved by revealing all she knew; and that he would help her in that effort. Accordingly, the detective's remarks to Rush were improper promises of special consideration in exchange for an inculpatory statement.