there is ample objective evidence that all of defendant’s statements were voluntary, pointing out that defendant was aware of his rights, was advised of his rights several times on May 2, is of above-average intelligence, and had been involved previously in the criminal justice system. Acknowledging that defendant was only nineteen at the time, the State contends that he was an adult and was able to understand his rights and to waive them. The State therefore urges this Court to reject defendant’s assertion “that the detectives told the defendant that he had no choice but to talk to them,” arguing that the detectives merely suggested that defendant would not be free of his own guilty knowledge unless he told them the truth. See State v. Miller, 76 N.J. 392, 398, 388 A.2d 218 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Third, the State asserts that .defendant’s
holding inconsistent out of court statements otherwise admissible not admissible against government in criminal prosecution holding that defendants statements made to an informant were admissible even though the informant lied about his identity holding that defendants statements were admissible even though interviewing officer said youve got to tell me the truth holding standards for interviewing children that had allegedly been sexually abused not clearly established and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity holding that where a defendant expressly manifested his belief in the truth of the statements contained in the motion to dismiss thereby adopting those statements as his own such statements are admissible against the defendant in the states case in chief