A difference between "not guilty" and "can't legally substantiate a claim," may exist in the minds of Wyatt Earp Syndrome prosecutors, but fortunately neither jurors nor our legal system are interested in distinctions which make no difference. But thanks for betraying your fair mindedness--again.
As for what you hand judges, yawn, you'll excuse me but I think there's a thread going on over at the canteen about a dog that can bark the alphabet.
There is a difference to the public between "in jail and guilty" and "out of jail and guilty", however, and you seem to think Joe Q. Juror and other members of the public besides yourself are not interested in that distinction at all. Why do you think Dirty Harry and myriad fictionalized old West lawmen are so popular? Because they put the guilty in jail or in a coffin, legal technicalities notwithstanding. Not even a majority of the American public shares your concern any more that all the systematic niceties are observed, because defense lawyers have so abused the system that the average member of the public has little faith in crooks going to jail even if they are caught. That sort of extreme legal observance in the pursuit of ultimate fairness--not justice, fairness--almost always results in the Johnny Cochran types postponing or denying justice, and almost never delivering it. It also results in even bigger government, because the fix proposed for bad government is always more bad government.
No, the public knows Miranda was a crook, and while they get a laugh out of the silly warnings read to criminals on TV now, they know that these days, the only people who benefit from Miranda are lawyers hoping to get their clients sprung. They also know that most of the 'Constitutional protections' imposed on the states by defense lawyers and a malleable SCOTUS were neither meant to be imposed on the states nor meant at all by the Framers, no matter what the NEA-led civics class teachers say. It's one thing to want lawmen to have to meet reasonable restrictions that prevent them from abuse of their authority, but it's quite another to force the public to pay for every crook's lawyer under the mistaken belief that the Constitution provides a right to one paid for by the state, and force the law to be recited at every arrest--in the face of the general notion that ignorance of the law is no excuse. You think I'm playing Wyatt Earp, but I KNOW you're channeling Alan Dershowitz! So go back and play with your alphabet-barking pooches at the kids' table, junior.