Is there any evidence to support the Defendant's claim that he was coerced into giving evidence that he had been denied access to a glass of water by the police?

Defendant's contention that his request for a glass of water was denied is unsupported by the record. The record contains no evidence that the request was denied, and defendant does not affirmatively assert that he was deprived of water. Defendant's argument that he was coerced because officers threatened that he might lose his green card if he was untruthful is also without merit. "'"[M]ere advice or exhortation by the police that it would be better for the accused to tell the truth when unaccompanied by either a threat or a promise does not render a subsequent [statement or admission] involuntary." [Citation.] In terms of assessing inducements assertedly offered to a suspect, "'[w]hen the benefit pointed out by the police . . . is merely that which flows naturally from a truthful and honest course of conduct,' the subsequent statement will not be considered involuntarily made. [Citation.]" [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Esqueda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1484.) The officers made no promises to defendant, but instead encouraged him to tell the truth and pointed out the consequences of being dishonest. Having reviewed the totality of the circumstances independently, we conclude defendant's admission was voluntary.

Whether Defendant Was Prejudiced by the Admission of Testimony Regarding "Korean Cabs"