With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". testified that he witnessed Officer Foster “mirandize” defendant. When asked what Officer Foster said to defendant, Agent Miller attempted to repeat what was said, but could not remember. General, conclusory statements such as those recited above are not sufficient to discharge the Government’s burden of proving that Miranda warnings were given. Whether a sufficient Miranda warning was given or whether a suspect was “mirandized” is a question which the court must decide, based on all the testimony. The result may well vary, depending upon the exact testimony given, and only with specific testimony can the court decide whether the officers conveyed all of the proper warnings and whether the state ment in question was admissible. See generally United States v. Anthon, 648 F.2d at 672-74 (<HOLDING>). Cf. id., 648 F.2d at 678 (Seymour, J.,

A: holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen
B: holding inadmissible a statement made after incomplete miranda advisement but holding a subsequent statement admissible because the court found it was given after a full advisement
C: holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible
D: holding admissible suspects statement to police after being informed that he had been identified in a lineup which the court assumed without deciding was interrogation for purposes of the appeal because the statements were voluntarily made without any coercion and came after the suspect was given and validly waived his miranda rights
B.