Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): goes to voluntariness The Court: Yeah. Crook: As I understand it. Hedgepeth (counsel for State): Well, as I understand it, it does too, but that’s what I want defense counsel to say on the record that he agrees that’s the way our courts ruled that that’s correct and we do not have to have every officer that was involved in everything. ¶ 17. The State submits that these exchanges indicate Sanders’s repeated and absolute waiver of the issue of the volun-tariness of her statement and was strictly based on whether Sanders had requested the presence of a lawyer during questioning. The State responds that Sanders never put on the evidence and expressly declined to attempt to produce evidence sufficient to invoke the Agee evidentiary rule. Hogan v. State, 730 So.2d 94, 98 (Miss.Ct.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). Further, the State submits that once the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that agee applies only where defendant has alleged that his confession was induced by threats or promises (B) holding that confession was not induced from an improper promise where competent evidence supports the trial courts finding that the interviewing officer made no promises during the interrogation (C) holding that confession was involuntary where suspect was a few days short of his sixteenth birthday was questioned for at least four hours prior to his first confession and was not accompanied by counsel friends or family where defendants made no showing that petitioner acted coolly or callously during questioning or that he had past experiences with the police and where police made promises of leniency (D) holding that implicit threats or promises did not render a defendants statement involuntary when a review of the circumstances reveals that the defendants independent will was not overcome so as to induce a confession that he was not otherwise disposed to malee internal quotation marks omitted (E) holding that question of whether a confession was coerced was not to be resolved by considering the truth or falsity of the confession
Output (English): holding that confession was not induced from an improper promise where competent evidence supports the trial courts finding that the interviewing officer made no promises during the interrogation