fundamental to the traditions and conscience of our people.” Id. at 432, 106 S.Ct. 1135 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Although the Court determined that the police misconduct in Moran did not rise to the level of a due process violation, it noted that a violation may be found when such behavior “so shocks the sensibilities of civilized society.” Id. at 433-34, 106 S.Ct. 1135. Based on the Supreme Court’s holding in Moran, we do not believe that the Michigan City Police Department has conducted itself in a manner violative of due process. In Moran, the police actually misled the attorney by telling him that his client would not be interrogated that day, yet this act did not constitute a due process violation. See also Matney v. Armontrout, 956 F.2d 824, 825-26 (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). In Ms. Huerta’s case, there is no evidence
holding that police failure to inform the accused of his attorneys attempts to contact him and misstatements to the attorney as to whether the accused was at the police station did not violate the accuseds due process rights holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that accused was not in custody when asked to go to the police station and left the station freely holding that the police have a duty to inform a criminal defendant of his lawyers efforts to contact him