Can a police force implore a suspect to confess by outlining the benefits of a lenient treatment in exchange for a confession?

police, prosecution or court in consideration of making a statement, even a truthful one, such motivation is deemed to render the statement involuntary and inadmissible . . . ." ' " (People v. Holloway, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 115.) A promise of benefit need not be explicit, "but may be implied from equivocal language not otherwise made clear." (People v. Hill (1967) 66 Cal.2d 536, 549, italics added.)

"The line 'can be a fine one' [citation] between urging a suspect to tell the truth by factually outlining the benefits that may flow from confessing, which is permissible, and impliedly promising lenient treatment in exchange for a confession, which is not." (People v. Holloway, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 117.) The police may permissibly implore a defendant to tell the truth to ease his conscience or otherwise psychologically benefit. (See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 299 [police told defendant he would " 'feel better' " if he confessed and would be "helping himself by cooperating"], disapproved on another ground in People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 901, fn. 3; People v. Flores (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 459, 469.) "Moreover, truthful and 'commonplace' statements of possible legal consequences, if unaccompanied by threat or promise, are permissible police practices and will not alone render a subsequent statement involuntary and inadmissible." (Flores, at p. 469.)