Does the allegation that the police broke appellant's resistance through "promises of leniency and threats that he would face harsher charges and penalties if he did not confess"?

Appellant also contends that the police broke appellant's resistance through "promises of leniency and threats that appellant would face harsher charges and penalties if he did not confess." A careful review of the transcripts of the interrogation reveals that the gist of the comments cited [194 Cal.App.3d 1507] by appellant was not that he would be punished for not confessing but that his concealment of the identity of the person who shot the victim tended to reflect negatively on the extent of his involvement. The comments explain the possible consequences, depending upon his motivations and involvement in the shooting, and as such do not constitute "threats" or "false promises of leniency." ⁴ " 'It is settled that admonitions to tell the truth do not amount to coercion,' nor do 'assertions that one is better off telling the truth' constitute false promises of leniency." (People v. Seaton (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 67, 74, 194 Cal.Rptr. 33, quoting People v. Anderson (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 563, 578-579, 161 Cal.Rptr. 707.)