Appellant was interrogated by two police officers for 45 minutes after she made repeated requests for counsel. Police officers told her that she could avoid a capital murder charge if she confessed, that nothing she told them would be used against her, and that officers had evidence against her they actually did not have. Appellant did not confess to the murder, and the interview ended after appellant told the detectives that she had not slept in three days and would call them after she got some sleep. Three days later, appellant was arraigned. She told officers she wished to speak with them, and after Miranda advisements, confessed on tape. On appeal, appellant raised the issue of her confession during the second interrogation. The Court of Appeal held that although the first interrogation violated appellant’s rights, the second interview was not tainted by the violations, and was properly admitted. Appellant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. Here, the federal appellate court upheld the ruling of the California Court of Appeal. Even though the police misconduct was egregious and violated appellant’s constitutional rights, suppression of the later confession was not required. The initial coercion had such a minimal effect on the will of the appellant that the second Miranda advisement neutralized any lingering effect.