In reaching their decision to deny the motion to suppress the defendant's confession in the case US†v Jourdain, the court outlines acceptable interrogator behavior.† In their decision they state, "As our Court of Appeals has recognized:

To state the obvious, ìinterrogation of a suspect will involve some pressure because its purpose is to elicit a confession.î [ United States v. Astello, 241 F.3d 965, 967 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 962 (2001) ]. ì[T]he fact that the tactics produced the intended result * * * does not make a confession involuntary.î Id. at 968. In other words, ëthere is nothing inherently wrong with efforts to create a favorable climate for confession.î United States v. LeBrun, 306 F.3d 545, 555 (8th Cir.2002)(internal citations omitted. ì ë[Q]uestioning tactics such as a raised voice, deception, or a sympathetic attitude will not render a confession involuntary unless the overall impact of the interrogation caused the defendant's will to be overborne.í ì Astello, 241 F.3d at 967 (quoting Jenner v. Smith, 982 F.2d 329, 334 (8th Cir.1993)). Nor will a promise of leniency, an ìexpressed disbelief in the statements of a suspect * * *, or lie[s] to the accused about the evidence against himî necessarily render a confession involuntary. Wilson v. Lawrence County, 260 F.3d 946, 953 (8th Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted). Rather, the coercive conduct must be ìsuch that the defendant's will was overborne and his capacity for self determination critically impaired.î Astello, 241 F.3d at 967 (internal citations omitted).

As was true with Kelly's statements in Graves' vehicle, we find no responsible basis upon which to conclude that the Defendant's will was overborne by the questioning techniques that were employed by Peterson, or because of any of Kelly's individual characteristics."