Four separate cases involving similar fact situations were consolidated as they presented the same constitutional question. In each case, police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys took a defendant into custody and interrogated him in a police station to obtain a confession. In two of these cases, the officials did not fully and effectively advise the defendants of their rights at the outset of the interrogation. In one case, the officer stated that the defendant had the right "to talk to a lawyer for advice before any questioning. And that he had the right to have an attorney present during questioning." In the fourth case, the defendant remained silent during the questioning but did respond to three questions: "Do you believe in God?" "Do you pray to God?" And, crucially, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Police interrogations produced oral admissions of guilt from each defendant, as well as signed statements from two of them, which were used to convict them at their trials. The defendants appeal, arguing that the officials should have warned them of their constitutional rights and the consequences of waiving them before the questionings began, that one was not properly advised, and that one did not waive his right to remain silent. It was contended that to permit any statements obtained without such a warning violated their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Were the defendants' constitutional rights violated? Discuss and support your answer.