Talking in the US context. The Miranda warning says anything you say can be used against you in a court of law but never to support your case. So as I see it talking to the cops makes no sense irrespective of whether you have committed a crime or not. So why do suspects sit for hours long interviews with the cops?
Edit:- “… never to support your case”. As some commenters pointed out the Miranda warning doesn’t say that. That’s right, I meant it in an implicit way. I just saw a defense attorney’s YT video who said that’s the hidden part.
In: Other
I know you are asking about the US, but I can offer some insight into the UK perspective.
We don’t have “Miranda Rights” but we do have an equivalent in the form of a police “Caution”, whereby a person doesn’t have to say anything, but it may harm their defence if they do not mention, when questioned, something which they later rely on in court.
Essentially, this means that if you keep quiet during a police interview, and then raise a defence for a crime in a court room, the judge or jury can draw negative inference from the fact that you kept quiet in the police interview. In simple terms, they can assume you’ve spent the time between your police interview and court date inventing a story, rather than telling the truth.
So a person may choose not to exercise their right to remain silent if they have a legitimate defence to a crime. For example, if I’ve acted in self defense, I could say so during interview, and it would hold a lot more weight than if I only mentioned it in court.
Latest Answers