Significantly, none of the decisions regarding the admissibility of a confession turns on the presence or absence of a single controlling criterion, each reflects a careful scrutiny of all the surrounding circumstances. Accordingly, this Court has held that an analysis of the voluntariness of a confession is a factual question that must take into account the totality of the circumstances. Pursuant to Sec. This section places the burden on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was voluntary. The central question is whether the State has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was advised of his constitutional rights and whether that defendant knowingly waived them and voluntarily gave a statement.
Several factors can culminate in a totality of circumstances that render a confession involuntary.
A confession extracted by any sort of threat or violence, by any direct or implied promises, however slight, or by the exertion of any improper influence has the potential to be involuntary. Physical coercion, psychological coercion, inadequate Miranda warnings, and impermissible police practices are each factors weighed in a court's consideration of undue influence. In the instant case, the police followed impermissible practices and failed to administer adequate Miranda warnings. When a defendant moves to suppress a statement, the district court's analysis should focus on whether the law enforcement authorities followed impermissible procedures. For example, in Allies, the defendant voluntarily presented himself at the police station three times, underwent a polygraph test, and eventually confessed to four murders.