the consequences of abandoning them.” Moran, 475 U.S. at 423-24, 106 S.Ct. 1135. The California Court of Appeal’s decision on this matter does not warrant relief under AEDPA. C Ortiz further contends that Detective Cardwell’s interrogation tactics overcame his will by the making of implicit promises of lenient treatment if he confessed. He contends that these promises of leniency coerced him into confessing involuntarily. While some of Detective Cardwell’s statements may have affected Ortiz’s decision to confess, they did not constitute implicit promises of leniency. Her statements were intended to reassure him that if he was telling the truth, and if he was in fact innocent, she could help him get cleared. See Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 727, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Ortiz knew the consequences that would flow
holding that smith who was 15 years old could waive his miranda rights and his right to have an attorney or parent present during questioning by police holding that juvenile defendants miranda rights were violated when the police continued to interrogate him after he requested his parents holding that the defendants act of placing his hand over the officers was at best ambiguous and given his general cooperative attitude during the search wholly ineffective to communicate an intention to rescind or narrow his consent holding that statements elicited from a defendant in violation of his miranda rights could be introduced to impeach that defendants credibility when the jury was instructed that the statements were not to be considered as evidence of his guilt holding that officers remarks to a sixteenyearold juvenile that a cooperative attitude would be to his benefit were far from threatening or coercive where he was thoroughly informed of his miranda rights and the officers questioning was restrained and free from the abuses that so concerned the court in miranda 