Question about the wording of Miranda rights

“Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law”

I have always wondered why this phrase isn’t worded like this: ‘Anything you say can and may be used against you in a court of law.’ Doesn’t the verb ‘will’ imply some kind of determination or intent? I mean, they aren’t necessarily going to use everything you say against you in court, right? During an interrogation, you might mention that you have a dog named Spot. Will that be used against you in court if it is totally irrellevant to the case? I would think not.

Can someone set me straight here and explain why ‘May’ wasn’t used instead?

The actual ruling (
[quoted in part here]
( does use the word “may.”

I suspect it’s a case of simplifying the text.

Also, I imagine every jurisdiction has the freedom to explain the rights in whatever language they choose.

The stronger you phrase the potential harm, the less the arrested party can claim he or she didn’t understand his rights, and the effect of a fully informed, voluntary confession.

You have the right to remain silent. If you don’t remain silent, you have waived your rights as to whatever you tell them, you see. If tell the police you have a dog named Spot, and this somehow becomes relevant to the case, it will be used against you.