The two are related. In practice no indictment will issue if the prosecutor doesn't think they can win without the defendant's testimony, and in practice the defendant's statements to police are used to impeach them at trial (because the hearsay rule allows that hearsay) and thus make a part of the case just as much as if they made those statements in court, in the witness box. No case -> no trial, no trial -> definitely no testimony.
Watch that video. Then watch it again. Schedule a yearly watching or three.
> If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?
Because innocent people do get wrongly convicted. If you don't want to be that innocent person, you might have to assert your rights, including your Fifth Amendment rights.
Note that the Fifth Amendment does not say that you can't be forced to incriminate yourself, as many TV courtroom dramas wrongly imply. Statements like "the mob takes the Fifth" are based on that kind of incorrect reading of the Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment actually says that you can't be forced to be a witness against yourself. A witness can provide testimony that looks incriminating even if the defendant is actually innocent, and such testimony can lead to an innocent person being wrongly convicted. The Fifth Amendment is there to help reduce the chances of that happening.
Thanks for taking time to answer properly, and I agree wholeheartedly.
My post was above was a bit naughty, as I was quoting the current president (in response to a post discussing his recent impeachment) without revealing that it was a quotation.
It was a little underhanded of me to write that without quotation marks, but the words I posted above were famously uttered by the current President in 2016, when criticizing someone else for relying on the 5th amendment. My point is that his idea of justice is actually extremely variable depending on what benefits him at any given time.