Whether Thompkins' incriminating statements were involuntary and should have been suppressed

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether Thompkins’ incriminating statements were involuntary and should have been suppressed, where the interrogating officer: suggested that Thompkins’ remaining silent could result in a harsher sentence, threatened to tell the judge that Thompkins wouldn't cooperate, implied that things would get worse for Thompkins if he waited to speak with a lawyer, and exerted relentless pressure about Thompkins’ children. Whether there was insufficient evidence to support Thompkins' conviction for armed bank robbery as opposed to insider bank larceny, where the district court found that the plan was that codefendant Toyrieon Sessions was supposed to come into the bank and meet codefendant Iris Lester, a bank employee, who would take Sessions to the bank vault, give him the money in the vault, and let him out of the bank before anyone else knew that he had been at the bank. Whether the government met its burden of proving that a firearm was used in the offense, where Thompkins was not present during the offense, and where the district court found that the plan was that codefendant Sessions was supposed to come into the bank and meet codefendant Lester, a bank employee, who would take Sessions to the bank vault, give him the money in the vault, and let him out of the bank before anyone else knew that he had been at the bank. i Statement of