In People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, the interrogating detective had known the defendant for 10 years. The defendant, although arrested, had not been given his Miranda rights. He and the detective spoke for a half hour without a tape recorder about unrelated past events and former acquaintances. They finally discussed the victim, with the detective commenting that the former had been a suspect in a homicide and was thought to have homosexual tendencies. The defendant then said he would talk about the crime. He was Mirandized three hours after his arrest. When asked about his understanding of his rights, he replied, "'. . . I have no rights.'" ( People v. Honeycutt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 159.) When asked a second time, he acknowledged understanding them. He waived them and confessed. The California Supreme Court held, "The critical question is what effect failure to give a timely Miranda warning has on the voluntariness of a decision to waive which is induced prior to the Miranda admonitions.. . .. . . When the waiver results from a clever softening-up of a defendant through disparagement of the victim and ingratiating conversation, the subsequent decision to waive without a Miranda warning must be deemed to be involuntary for the same reason that an incriminating statement made under police interrogation without a Miranda warning is deemed to be involuntary." ( Id. at pp. 159, 160-161.) People v. Honeycutt (1977) strongly condemned the law enforcement interrogation tactic, which it characterized as "conversation-warning-interrogation." ( Id. at p. 159.) The practice condemned in Honeycutt involved the obtaining of a defendant's agreement to talk to police prior to advising the defendant of his rights under Miranda, and then advising him of those rights. "... We nevertheless conclude that in making his decision to waive a suspect should have that knowledge of his rights afforded by Miranda. The self-incrimination sought by the police is more likely to occur if they first exact from an accused a decision to waive and then offer the accused an opportunity to rescind that decision after a Miranda warning, than if they afford an opportunity to make the decision in the first instance with full knowledge of the Miranda rights." ( People v. Honeycutt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 160, ) In Honeycutt the defendant was taken into custody as a suspect in a homicide. During the ride to the police station. Detective Williams attempted to speak with the defendant, who sat silently looking back at the detective. Later, during the ride to the station, the defendant told Detective Williams that the detective knew him under a different name. Detective Williams then recognized defendant, who he had known through various police contacts during the previous 10 years. Upon their arrival at the station a different detective attempted to interview the defendant. However, defendant was hostile toward this detective, using racial epithets and spitting at the detective, this detective left the room and Detective Williams entered. Detective Williams engaged defendant in a half-hour unrecorded conversation, wherein the two discussed unrelated past events and former acquaintances, finally turning to conversation of the victim of the homicide. Defendant, who had not been advised of his rights under Miranda, agreed to talk about the homicide investigation. Three hours after his arrest defendant was first advised of his Miranda rights, and then provided a confession to the homicide. The court found this "clever softening-up" of the defendant through pre-advisement ingratiating conversation, which resulted in defendant's agreement to talk prior to being advised of his rights, rendered his post-advisement confession involuntary. ( People v. Honeycutt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at pp. 160-161.)