assault on Hatfield. After the second statement was taken, but before it was signed, Glover and Ferris returned to Helinski's office, because Ferris wanted further assurances that Keller would be used as a State's witness, and would not be prosecuted. Reassured, Ferris instructed the appellant to sign the statement, which he did at 6:15 p.m.
Keller appeared against Iozzi before a Grand Jury, but refused on self-incrimination grounds to testify at Iozzi's conspiracy trial. Following Iozzi's acquittal, Keller was indicted and, as heretofore indicated, convicted of soliciting to commit mayhem, his confessions being received in evidence against him at his trial.
Appellant contends that both statements were involuntary, being the product of inducement and hence inadmissible in evidence at his trial.
The basic standard governing the admissibility of an extrajudicial statementinducement, the appellant agreed to make a statement. By the time Ferris, appellant's attorney, was allowed to see him, Keller had already indicated that he knew "what happened" and had begun making a statement, in the course of which he stated that he had knowledge of "how Carvel Kenneth Hatfield met his death." Ferris was not then told that a statement was being taken, and when he left, Glover renewed his offer, presumably on the strength of an agreement with Deputy State's Attorney Helinski, and Keller agreed to finish the statement in spite of the advice of his counsel to make no statement. Under these circumstances, we hold that appellant's first statement was the product of a promise or inducement made by Lieutenant Glover whereby directly within the