At the other end of the spectrum is the set of values reflecting society’s deeply felt belief that the criminal law cannot be used as an instrument of unfairness ... [Citations omitted.] Schnekloth v. Bustamonte (1973), 412 U.S. 218, 225-26, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2046, 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 861. In determining whether a defendant’s confession was voluntary, the United States Supreme Court has assessed the totality of all the surrounding circumstances, including the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation. Schnekloth, 412 U.S. at 226, 93 S.Ct. at 2046, 36 L.Ed.2d at 861. Significantly, none of the decisions regarding the admissibility of a confession turns on the presence or a hat failure to warn defendant of rights rendered confession inadmissible); Allies, 606 P.2d 1043 (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the police followed
holding that mental coercion led to an involuntary confession holding that a confession obtained by interrogating the defendant for approximately 78 hours was 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  holding that impermissible police procedures rendered confession involuntary holding that physical brutality led to an involuntary confession