What is the current state of the law in the context of coercive interrogation?

"Here, there is no dispute as to the historical facts, no claim of physical intimidation or deprivation, and no assertion of coercive tactics other than the contents of the interrogation itself." (People v Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 114.) Only the transcripts were submitted for the trial court's consideration. Defendant partly contends that the actions of the officers "and the surrounding circumstances" rendered her statements involuntary. She emphasizes that she had asked about her sentence, suggesting that this equated to a request for legal advice, that is, for a lawyer's advice. However, she does not contest the trial court's ruling that her question was not an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel. She faults the officers for wrongly suggesting her intent was at issue, although this case was prosecuted as a felony-murder case. But "[t]he policeman is not a fiduciary of the suspect. The police are allowed to play on a suspect's ignorance, his anxieties, his fears, and his uncertainties; they just are not allowed to magnify those fears, uncertainties, and so forth to the point where rational decision becomes impossible." (United States v. Rutledge (7th Cir. 1990) 900 F.2d 1127, 1130.)