no ruling on, whether those circumstances indicated trustworthiness. While Mr. Jones appears to have been interviewed at the police station by at least two detectives, he was a defendant in this case with- significant motive to place the blame on his two co-defendants. Mr. Jones testified at trial that his statement contained numerous lies, and he ultimately pled guilty to all of the offenses arising from the victims’ murders. Mr. Jones’s significant motive when interviewed by the police to place the blame on the Defendant and his subsequent testimony that he lied in his ’ statement do not equate with it having been made under circumstances indicating trustworthiness. See State v. Devonta Amar Cunningham, No. M2012-02203-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 173495, at *13 (Tenn.Crim.App. Jan. 14, 2015) (<HOLDING>). Because the statement was not made under
holding that statement to police made thirtysix hours after a different statement to police was not part of one confession and not admissible under the rule of completeness holding admissible suspects statement to police after being informed that he had been identified in a lineup which the court assumed without deciding was interrogation for purposes of the appeal because the statements were voluntarily made without any coercion and came after the suspect was given and validly waived his miranda rights holding that a show up is not necessarily blemished by the fact that the victim was taken to a show up with the suspect handcuffed and near a police car with police officers present holding that statement taken at witness home by police nine days after the incident and based on a story made up and that everyone in the group had agreed to repeat if the police ever came questioning was not given under circumstances indicating trustworthiness holding witnesss formal signed written statement given at the police station one hour after the crime following structured police questioning was testimonial