Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): State, 918 S.W.2d 511, 518 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (Baird, J., concurring), urged that McFarland should be overruled, the Court of Criminal Appeals has not done so. I would hold that we are not bound by the interpretation of the federal rule by the United States Supreme Court, based on the substantial differences in the respective evi-dentiary rules regarding statements against penal interest. Indeed, the approach of the United States Supreme Court in Williamson was to evaluate each statement within a confession as a separate statement for purposes of admissibility under the federal hearsay exception. Id. at 2434-35 This is antithetical to the general approach Texas has taken in evaluating admissibility of statements. See, e.g., Marini v. State, 593 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (<HOLDING>). The federal interpretation would lead to the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that counsels failure to move to suppress the defendants confession constituted ineffective assistance because it was obvious that the confession would have been suppressed (B) holding that question is whether defendants will was overborne by police at the time of the confession (C) holding that rule of completeness did not apply where statements made at the scene and the statement made at the police station were  distinct and not part of one confession (D) holding that trial judges determination of the admissibility of a confession is based on whether the confession was voluntarily given (E) holding that later declarations during defendants confession leading officers to evidence of the crime constituted part of one continuous confession that began at the police station
Output (English): holding that rule of completeness did not apply where statements made at the scene and the statement made at the police station were  distinct and not part of one confession