[Still Thinking]

Holding: When petitioner had not yet been placed in custody or received Miranda warnings, and voluntarily responded to some questions by police about a murder, the prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question as evidence of his guilty at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question.

Whaaaaa? So you have to utter some magic incantation for silence not to be used against you? Shoot after this ruling, I'd think if you DID say you were standing on the 5th it could be used against you, because since the 5th provides protection from self-incrimination, then if you don't want to talk, then anything you had to say must then have been incriminating!

[BlueNgold]

Think of this in terms of say .. Lois Lerner.
It has been argued she lost her ability to invoke the 5th when she voluntarily made a statement she intended to be entered into the record.

Or, imagine a defendant taking the stand ... they cannot choose which questions they will or will not answer.

I understand these are not directly the same, but a similar concept applies. I think it looks at miranda as a dividing line. The courts have also ruled that even week protest to answering a question trigger miranda... you don’t have to give the movie version ... on advice of counsel had a yada

Imagine you are asked 3 questions... 1 and 3 you answer freely, and 2 you refuse or just stare at the questioner. This ruling says they may reasonably assume you are hiding something, and that they may bring that assumption into court.

I’m not saying I necessarily l like the ruling, but I get it as a reasonable concept.

[CodeToad]

“So you have to utter some magic incantation for silence not to be used against you?”

That sums it up perfectly. Just exactly what magical verbiage is required?