A police officer in his initial interrogation of appellant intentionally continued the interrogation in deliberate violation of Miranda, in spite of appellant’s repeated (nine times) invocation of his right to remain silent and his request to speak with an attorney. Not only did the officer continue questioning, but he badgered appellant, accusing him of lying and offering to help him if he cooperated. Appellant did not confess during this session. Then, the officer put appellant in custody overnight without access to counsel, or food, drink, or toilet facilities. The following morning, appellant asked to speak with the officer, who ultimately obtained a confession from him. The issue presented in the California Supreme Court was whether appellant acted voluntarily in initiating further contact with the officer the following morning, and whether the subsequent confessions were voluntary. The Court held that neither the conversation nor the confessions were voluntary in light of the surrounding circumstances: the officer’s deliberate violation of Miranda, appellant’s youth, inexperience, and low intelligence, the deprivation imposed during confinement, and the officer’s threats and promises. The confessions were not only inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief, but they also could not be use for any other purpose because of their involuntariness. The consequence is necessary to deter future police misconduct.