What is the admissibility of a conversation between a defendant and the police at the time of his arraignment?

Nor affecting the admissibility of the conversation is the fact that it occurred within the 48-hour period prior to his arraignment, or at a time when defendant was not represented by counsel. The test used in determining the admissibility of such statement is--considering all of the circumstances, whether it was freely and voluntarily given by the accused with out any inducement held out to him. Delay in arraignment is only one of the factors to be considered in that connection and does not in itself render the conversation inadmissible (Rogers v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 3, 291 P.2d 929); as is the fact that at the time defendant's counsel was absent (People v. Aguilar, 140 Cal.App. 87, 35 P.2d 137, 142) or the accused was not advised of his right to remain silent or advised of his right to counsel or that what he says may be used against him. People v. Hoyt, 20 Cal.2d 306, 125 P.2d 29; People v. Tipton, 48 Cal.2d 389, 309 P.2d 813. There is no contention here that the statements attributed to defendant were involuntarily made; moreover, the voluntary nature of the admissions contained in the conversation recorded by the police appears without question from the other evidence.