In what circumstances will the police be able to obtain an involuntary confession from a suspect?

In People v. Flores (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 459, 192 Cal.Rptr. 772, the court stated, " 'Once a suspect has been properly advised of his rights, he [20 Cal.App.4th 212] may be questioned freely so long as the questioner does not threaten harm or falsely promise benefits. Questioning may include exchanges of information, summaries of evidence, outline of theories of events, confrontation with contradictory facts, even debate between police and suspect.... Yet in carrying out their interrogations the police must avoid threats of punishment for the suspect's failure to admit or confess particular facts and must avoid false promises of leniency as a reward for admission or confession.' " (Id. at p. 470, 192 Cal.Rptr. 772, citing People v. Nicholas (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 249, 264-265, 169 Cal.Rptr. 497, emphasis added.)

People v. Esqueda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1450, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 126, also involved an involuntary confession. In that case, the defendant was convicted of second degree murder. On appeal, the court held that the trial court erred in admitting the taped statements of defendant's interviews with the police. In so doing, the court concluded the questioning by the police was unlawful because the police relied upon lies, trickery and threats to obtain statements from defendant. Indeed, the court found that there was "outrageous police behavior" and stated that the interrogation tactics were "so reminiscent of the police conduct in the late 1950's ... as to cause wonder that we have come so far since then, yet progressed so little." (Id. at pp. 1484-1485, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 126.)