In Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 , 18 S. Ct. 183 , 42 L. Ed. 568 (1897), the defendant - the first mate of a merchant vessel who was suspected of murdering the ships second mate, the captain, and the captains wife - was brought ashore in irons, detained, and strip-searched. See Bram, 168 U.S. at 561-62, 18 S.Ct. at 194. During or after the strip-search, a detective spoke with Bram, and informed him that another member of the crew had accused him of the murders. Id. at 562, 18 S.Ct. at 194. Bram then gave statements to the detective. On these facts, the Bram Court found that Brams statements were inadmissible against him at trial, and therefore set aside his conviction on direct appeal. It is clear, however, that what the Court was concerned with was not merely the possible implication of a promise of governmental benefits, but Brams overall position with respect to the detective obtaining his statements. See Bram, 168 U.S. at 562, 18 S.Ct. at 194 (stating that the situation of the accused, and the nature of the communication . . . necessarily overthrows any possible implication that his reply . . . could have been the result of a purely voluntary mental action). The Court held that 'in criminal trials, in the courts of the United States, wherever a question arises whether a confession is incompetent because not voluntary, the issue is controlled by that portion of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, commanding that no person 'shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Id., 168 U.S. at 542 (18 S.Ct. 183 at 187). Under this test, the constitutional inquiry is not whether the conduct of (government) officers in obtaining the confession was shocking, but whether the confession was 'free and voluntary: that is, (it) must not be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence . . ..' Id., at 542-543 (18 S.Ct. 183 at 186-187).