In concluding that the government met its heavy burden of demonstrating that no coercion was utilized, I am not unmindful of the fact that several potentially relevant witnesses who could have been called by the government were not asked to testify. Defendant cites the recent Mississippi case of Nabors v. State, 293 So.2d 336 (Miss. 1974) for the proposition that all officers accused of participating in the brutality must be called. Although as a matter of prosecutorial practice, I think it would be wiser to call all the detectives who may have been involved, I do not think that, where their testimony would be merely cumulative and the defendant's version has already been rendered so unbelievable, the failure to call certain potentially useful witnesses compels the conclusion that the government has failed to meet its heavy burden. In this regard, I note that in the case of Smith v. State, 505 S.W.2d 504 (Ark. 1974), also cited by defendant for the proposition that all material witnesses must be called, a doctor testified that six days after the alleged beating the defendant had a ruptured eardrum which could have been caused by a blow to his head.

1982); McLeod v. State, 317 So.2d 389 (Miss. 1975); Nabors v. State, 293 So.2d 336 (Miss. 1974); Stevens v. State, 228 So.2d 888 (Miss. 1969); Scott v. State, 382 So.2d 1091 (Miss. 1980).

1973); Evans v. State, 275 So.2d 83, 85, (Miss. 1973); Nabors v. State, 293 So.2d 336, 338, (Miss. 1974); Butler v. State, 296 So.2d 673, 675, (Miss. 1974); Harrison v. State, 307 So.2d 557, 561, (Miss.

1975); Younger v. State, 301 So.2d 300 (Miss. 1974); Nabors v. State, 293 So.2d 336 (Miss. 1974); Evans v. State, 285 So.2d 786 (Miss. 1973); Reid v. State, 266 So.2d 21 (Miss.

The Lee County confession was not offered in evidence and the State did not produce any of the Lee County officers. Nabors v. State, 293 So.2d 336 (Miss. 1974) closely parallels the instant case. In Nabors defendant signed a confession in Arkansas and a second confession in Mississippi.