There are plenty of exceptions to the hearsay rule, though; there are also times when something that seems like it’s hearsay isn’t. Exception: maybe you made the statement to the cop while you were covered in blood and blubbering about something you had witnessed, making it an excited utterance. Or maybe your lawyer is eliciting the statement from the cop not to suggest to the jury that it’s true, but to show you had no motive, making it fall outside of the hearsay rule.

Police have a responsibility to testify truthfully under oath, within the constraints of the rules on hearsay. But that doesn’t mean they are forbidden from saying anything in your favor, no matter what.

Also if a cop lies hard to say who is right. But if you never talked to a cop unless your lawyer was present with recording equipment, etc. well, that’s a much more solid defense.

But it’s not like that acts as a filter against anything in your interest, since it would still come out on cross, right? I tried to illustrate with my comment here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33973220

At first, that sounds weird. Then I read the link you've provided. Now I understand how it makes perfect sense. Thanks for the explainer.

"If you tell a police officer that you did a crime, then your words are admissible as evidence against you."

This is because the people who wrote the evidence rules believe nobody would admit to a crime unless they are guilty. So it's a hearsay exception.

The exception isn't meant to be a sinister trick to treat you unfairly, it's meant to lead to the right people going to jail and the right people not going to jail.

Ehhh that's still misleading. It makes it sound like when the officer testifies about your statements, it goes through a magical filter in which only the inculpatory(is that the word?) stuff can come in, but not the exculpatory. Like...

During Mirandized interrogation:

Doe: "I grabbed her wrists after she picked up a knife to attack me."

In court:

Prosecutor: "What, if anything, did you learn from questioning Mr. Doe?"

Officer: "He said he grabbed her wrists."

Defense attorney on cross-examination: "In what context did Mr. Doe grab her wrists?"

Officer: "After she picked up a kni--"

Prosecutor: "Objection! Hearsay!"

Judge: "Sustained. Jury will disregard anything about the accuser picking up a knife. Wrist grabbing stuff is fine."

^Not remotely how it works, at all, but what you might falsely believe from being told "your words are admissible against you, not for you".

Talking to the "regular" police and talking to a federal investigator are two completely different things. At the federal level they have "false or misleading statements"[0] which is a felony with a five year max. People have been convicted and done prison time on this alone based on nothing other than the notes and testimony from a federal investigator. At the state level probably the best they have is "obstruction of justice"[1] which requires things like physically interfering with the police or destroying evidence and even those actions have lesser penalties than "false or misleading statements".

I have a friend who is a federal criminal investigator and his advice when/if the feds show up is to say nothing other than "Do you have a business card? Someone will be in touch." and get a lawyer ASAP.

[0] - https://www.iannfriedman.com/blog/2019/april/federal-charges...

[1] - https://www.pallegarlawfirm.com/obstructing-justice-in-flori...