defendant’s waiver involuntary or unknowing. Defendant has not raised on appeal any other grounds for suppression despite his testimony at the suppression hearing that he had feared physical abuse during the interrogation. A custodial confession is admissible only if there has been a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966). To determine voluntariness, courts examine the totality of the circumstances. State v. Galloway, 133 N.J. 631, 654, 628 A.2d 735 (1993). Although misrepresentations by police officers to the subject of an interrogation are relevant in analyzing the totality of the circumstances, People v. McClary, 20 Cal.3d 218, 142 Cal.Rptr. 163, 169, 571 P.2d 620, 626 (1977) (<HOLDING>), misrepresentations alone are usually
holding that mental coercion led to an involuntary confession holding that confession was involuntary based on various circumstances of interrogation including misrepresentation about defendants deatheligibility holding that trial judges determination of the admissibility of a confession is based on whether the confession was voluntarily given holding that impermissible police procedures rendered confession involuntary holding that under elstad the first question that must be answered when determining whether a subsequent confession is tainted by an earlier confession is whether the initial confession was obtained in violation of the defendants fifth amendment rights  ie whether it was involuntary  or whether the confession was voluntary but obtained in technical violation of miranda 