Four separate cases involving similar fact situations wereconsolidated as they presented the same constitutional question. Ineach case, police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorney'stook a defendant into custody and interrogated him in a policestation to obtain a confession. In two of these cases the officialsdid not fully and effectively advise the defendants of their rightsat the outset of the interrogation. In one case the officer statedthat the defendant had the right “to talk to a lawyer for advicebefore any questioning. And that he had the right to have anattorney present during questioning.” In the fourth case thedefendant remained silent during the questioning but did respond tothree questions: “Do you believe in God?” Do you pray to God?” And,crucially “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boydown?” Police interrogations produced oral admissions of guilt fromeach defendant, as well as signed statements from two of them,which were used to convict them at their trials. The defendantsappeal, arguing that the officials should have warned them of theirconstitutional rights and the consequences of waiving them beforethe questionings began, that two were not properly advised and thatone did not waive his right to remain silent. It was contended thatto permit any statements obtained without such a warning violatedtheir Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Werethe defendants' constitutional rights violated? Discuss and supportyour answer.