In a criminal case where the defendant, a sixteen-year-old at the time of the offense, confessed to serious crimes during a custodial interrogation, the State seeks to introduce the confession as evidence at trial. Prior to the confession, the defendant was informed of his legal rights under Miranda v. Arizona, despite his undocumented status in the United States. The interrogation was conducted in the defendant's primary language, and the defendant verbally acknowledged understanding his rights. During the interrogation, the detective made several references to the dangers the defendant faced from gang affiliations but did not offer any explicit promises of protection or leniency in exchange for the confession. The defendant's legal defense moved to suppress the confession, arguing it was not voluntarily given due to the coercive nature of the interrogation and the implied threats related to the defendant's gang associations. Given this scenario, which statement BEST reflects the standard the State must meet to have the defendant's confession admitted into evidence? Group of answer choices The State must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's waiver of Miranda rights was both knowing and voluntary, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant's age and the content of the interrogation The State is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the confession was obtained without any form of coercion, direct or implie