286 Cal.Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84. He was so talkative that the federal marshal hoped he would stop talking. This behavior continued on the plane, where Mickey directed a running conversation with whomever was the occupant of his airplane row. Throughout this trip, the officers did not threaten Mickey physically or psychologically. In fact, they did not ask him any questions. The officers merely reciprocated Mickey’s desire to engage in “small talk” about traffic, philosophy, politics, and mutual acquaintances in California. We cannot rule that Mickey’s will was “overborne” by these normal prison conditions, which the evi denee shows Mickey weathered quite well, in light of our case law holding incriminating statements in far worse conditions were voluntary. E.g., Shi, 525 F.3d at 719 (<HOLDING>). Even if we believed Mickey’s account, it is
holding that a statement made by a witness to a shooting an hour or two after the incident was not an excited utterance as it was not made while the speaker was laboring under excitement and before he had to time to reflect holding that the introduction of a jointly tried nontestifying codefendants statement violates the sixth amendment confrontation clause if the statement contains incriminating evidence concerning a defendant holding that incriminating statement issued after nineteenhour confinement by a native chinese speaker on a ship was voluntary holding that a defendants response to a question about his address was not protected by miranda notwithstanding the fact that pohce made use of the statement because it was not intended to elicit incriminating statements holding that summons issued nearly seven months after the show cause order was entered was not issued immediately as required by statute