Defense states that Mr. Arnold Stallone’s incriminating statements be withheld due to the violation of his 5th and 6th amendments and his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Before we begin on the validity of the statements made by Mr. Stallone, the court would like to point out that Officer Cyrus had put Mr. Stallone into custody as soon as he was handcuffed and put into the police cruiser. According to California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983), custodial interrogation is “initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Beheler. Therefore, since Mr. Stallone was handcuffed and placed into a police vehicle, any reasonable person would assume that they are under arrest and are then deprived of their freedom of action in any way. Since reading Miranda rights isn’t required as soon as an arrest takes place, but instead, before an incriminating response is made, (Miranda) both defense and prosecution are correct to say that Mr. Stallones rights were not violated within the time of arrest till the reading of Miranda rights. However, defense claims that his rights were violated as soon as Officer Cyrus began to say “Now is your chance to tell us your version of what happened…This will be your only opportunity to speak with us before you can go to court on these charges.”, because this was said before he was read his Miranda Rights. They base this on their belief that Officer Cyrus was purposely implying that Stallone respond and answer during interrogation. Defense uses case Missouri v Seibert 542 US 600 (2004) to explain why they believe this was unlawful. According to “Missouri v. Seibert.” Oyez, 17 Jan. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1371. “Miranda confession is only admissible if the Miranda warning and accompanying break are sufficient to give the suspect the reasonable belief that she has the right not to speak with the police.” Therefore, if Officer Cyrus conducted a “two-stage interview” and Mr. Stallone’s warning of his rights weren’t sufficient enough for him to believe he has the right to not speak to the police, defense would be right to say that his rights were violated, but this is not the case. Oyez. As prosecution correctly emphasizes, this was not a two-stage interview because there was no break between the statement officer Cyrus made and the reading of Miranda. According to Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986), a suspect’s statements are inadmissible if there was some sort of government coercion that affected their decision to confess, but Since Officer Cyrus said, although in a sketchy way, “this will be your only opportunity” and “now is your chance” the words opportunity and chance emphasize that they have another option, so this cannot be considered coercion.Connelly. Next, Officer Cyrus told him his other choices by reading him his rights, before Mr. Stallone even said anything that could possibly incriminate himself. Therefore, any information obtained due to a defendant’s own mistake, not the government’s, could be used against them in trial.Connelly After being Mirandized, Mr. Stallone was asked if he understood his rights and replied with “I watch Law and Order…I know my Miranda rights.” According to North Carolina v. Butler, 441 US 369 (1979) an explicit waiver is not necessary to prove the knowledge and understanding of one’s rights, but even here Officer cyrus asked another time whether he was sure he wanted to waive his rights, and he replied “yes”. By Mr. Stallones portrayal of confidence in his understanding of his rights, as well as waiving them a second time, although putting him in a bad spot, fully makes him accountable for his statements said during interrogation. Prosecution correctly states “when held to a standard of a preponderance of the evidence, the confession is proved voluntary and therefore admissible.”Butler. Moreover, as stated in “Florida v. Powell.” Oyez, 17 Jan. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1175. “that while Miranda requires that a suspect ‘be warned prior to any questioning’ and ‘that he has the right to the presence of an attorney’, it does not dictate the words in which the essential information must be conveyed. Rather, to determine whether police warnings are satisfactory, the inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably conveyed to a suspect his rights as required by Miranda.” Since Mr. Stallones rights were conveyed and read to him, there is no issue with using any statement he said during interrogation against him. Oyez Therefore the opinion of the court is that Mr. Stallones statements made during interrogation can be used as evidence against him. Ruling this way is in line with established precedent, and shows that the government fights for the sake of justice.