of the Due Process Clause ‘certain interrogation techniques, either in isolation or as applied to the unique characteristics of a particular suspect, are so offensive to a civilized system of justice that they must be condemned.’ ” (emphasis supplied) (quoting Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 109, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985))); Lynumn, 372 U.S. at 529-34, 83 S.Ct. 917; Spano, 360 U.S. at 320-23, 79 S.Ct. 1202. This is the proper conclusion in the type of extrinsic-fabrication case currently before the Court because such a fabrication essentially dangles a compelling false promise before the suspect, which is a circumstance the High Court has previously held impacts a voluntariness inquiry. See Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 543, 557-58, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897) (<HOLDING>); Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 285-86,
holding that only relevant factors must be considered holding that jury must determine voluntariness of statements to both private citizens and police holding that judgment calls on the weight to be given various relevant factors are for the sentencing court not for this court holding that promises inducements and improper influences on the part of the police are relevant voluntariness factors recognizing same factors