Fred was arrested and interrogated for murder. During the interrogation, law enforcement officers provided Fred with Miranda warnings, but the warnings were given in a somewhat fragmented manner, i.e., the officer informed Fred that he had the right to an attorney before he was questioned, the officer then mentioned that an attorney could be appointed for him if he could not afford one. Fred's attorney did not criticize the substance of the fragmented Miranda notice, but did argue that the fragmented delivery failed under the law of Miranda (thus rendering Fred's confession unconstitutional). Using the reasoning from California v. Prysock (1981), what do you believe the appellate court will decide? Group of answer choices The court will agree with Fred's attorney and reverse Fred's conviction The court will disagree with Fred's attorney; as long as Miranda warnings have been conveyed to the interrogee (Fred) "sufficiently," the interogee has been given adequate notice of their constitutional rights; Fred will lose his appeal. The court will agree with Fred and reason that while Miranda warnings need not always be "perfect" the fact that an attorney would be appointed if needed, must be conveyed at the same time as the notice of one's right to an attorney; Fred will win his appeal The court will disagree with Fred's attorney and will compliment the fractured way that the police provided notice as being a good way to trick interrogees; Fred will lose his appeal