When lower courts distort the rule announced in Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (burden of proof), should this Court correct that distortion?

QUESTION PRESENTED There is currently no nationwide standard regarding recording requirements of Miranda and/or interrogations. The state level jurisdictions are split with twenty-seven (27) having some type of recording mandate, anda wide variety of consequences for failing to record; by contrast, twenty-four (24) jurisdictions have no rule, statute, or case law regarding recording of Miranda and/or interrogations. Here, petitioner has asserted he never received Miranda Warnings. Even though North Dakota is one of the twenty-four (24) jurisdictions that does not have a recording mandate, the police department here has such a policy. The district court reasoned, “Miranda warnings could have been given.” The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling under the standard of review analysis without addressing the lack of Miranda warnings being captured in over 4 hours of recorded interview footage, therefore the question presented is as follows: 1. When lower courts distort the rule announced in Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (burden of proof), should this Court correct that distortion? 2. When there is no recording (audio or visual) of the alleged issuance of the Miranda warning, should the presumption be, no warnings were given? ii