This Court's remandfor a newtrial rather than only for a new determination of voluntariness of the confession was based uponthe principle that voluntarinessof the confession may beraised under California law as a factor for the jury in determiningits believability, as well as a factor for the judge in determining its admissibility and a recognition that withholding of evidence on voluntariness of the confession was prejudicial both asto guilt and as to penalty. See Memro I, 38 Cal.3d 658; California Evidence Code § 405(b). This Court determined that under California law and the facts of this case, evidence potentially prejudicial with regard to a determination of voluntariness was also potentially prejudicial with regard to a determination of guilt.