Confession given by defendant during police department interview prior to administration of Miranda warnings was improperly obtained. Confession occurred during custodial interrogation where it was clear from record that purpose of the interview was to obtain incriminating evidence from defendant and reasonable person in defendant's situation would not have felt free to leave. Moreover, defendant requested assistance of counsel prior to giving confession.
Coercion -- Under totality of circumstances, suggestions that interrogating officers could effect leniency, coupled with the representation that officer's opinion was superior to that of defendant's own counsel, amounted to outrageous police conduct, and there was a clear nexus between this outrageous conduct and defendant's confession. Trial court erred in denying motion to suppress. Error not harmless where improperly admitted statement was primary, if not the only, evidence tying defendant to charged offense. Read Entire Case Below: