is worth approximately $200. Id. at 339-40, 363. On cross examination, Mr. Hinton admitted to lying to the police and Ms. Levin about his alibi and his knowledge of the murders when he was first detained. Id. at 356-59. The state’s attorney also asked Mr. Hinton if he had lied at the suppression hearing when he said that he was never at the scene of the murder. Id. at 361. Mr. Hinton explained that the confession he gave to the police was true, except for the statement that John Durham owed him money, as opposed to cocaine. Id. at 363. Of course, what matters here is only Mr. Hinton’s credibility; the truth or falsity of the confession is irrelevant to the question of whether it ought to have been suppressed. See Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 544, 81 S.Ct. 735, 5 L.Ed.2d 760 (1961) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Hinton submitted an affidavit to the
holding that the admissibility of a state ment is controlled by determining from the totality of the cireumstances whether it was made voluntarily and not induced by violence threats or other improper influences that overcame the defendants free will holding that question of whether a confession was coerced was not to be resolved by considering the truth or falsity of the confession holding the determination of the voluntariness of a confession is a determination uninfluenced by the truth or falsity of the confession holding that trial judges determination of the admissibility of a confession is based on whether the confession was voluntarily given holding that the test of admissibility of confessions as voluntary is whether state officials behavior overcame the defendants will to resist and brought about a confession that was not freely selfdetermined not the probable truth or falsity of confessions