Defendant’s Silence After Being Given Miranda Warnings Cannot Be Used To Impeach Him, But His Stated Explanation For Remaining Silent Can

Generally, the Supreme Court held in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) that a Mirandized defendant who elects to remain silent in the face of questioning cannot have that silence used against him at trial, either on the prosecution's case in chief or via impeachment or rebuttal. (The Court did suggest an exception for circumstances in which a defendant testifies at trial that he did provide police with an exculpatory explanation in response to their questions, when in fact he elected not to answer their questions; then, he can be impeached with that silence since it directly contradicts his trial testimony). A different rule applies to...