Does the Miranda rule apply in the context of an allegation that the police improperly induced a suspect to give an inculpatory statement in order to get him to cooperate in the investigation?

Implicit in these cases, and in the Miranda rule, is a recognition that a suspect, during an investigation and prior to the "critical accusatory" stage, is capable of determining whether he will answer questions in the absence of counsel. Without a recognition of that capacity, the questions posed in these cases would not arise, because only with an otherwise voluntary statement is the issue squarly confronted. See People v. Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225, 238, 440 N.Y.S.2d 894, 423 N.E.2d 371, supra (Wachtler, J., dissenting).

Defendants also argue that the police improperly induced the inculpatory statements by holding out the prospect that the New Jersey charges would be dropped, that defendants would be returned to New York State and that the New York charges would be consolidated. Clearly defendants were anxious to get out of the Ocean County Jail and to serve in New York State whatever sentence or sentences might await them. The statements made by the New York officers, in regard to the various possibilities, were responsive to defendants' questions and accurate. No direct or implied promises were made. The New York officers, by explaining that defendants' cooperation would be related to the District Attorneys in New York State, did hold out the possibility that defendants would benefit by such cooperation. Such statements by police are not impermissible. People v. Perry, 77 A.D.2d 269, 433 N.Y.S.2d 138 (1st Dept.1980).