How have the courts interpreted the Miranda rights of a defendant in a criminal case?

Appellant argues that his statements made to officers during a February 8, 2007 interview were in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) and were involuntary. Appellant also argues that his December 11 statement - the one summarized in the facts - was involuntary. According to appellant, the December 11 interview "is a hornbook example of detectives breaking a suspects [sic] will by sheer persistence until the suspect provides a story that the interrogators (not the suspect) want." We discuss his arguments in reverse chronological order.