It is open to interpretation. That is why we have juries. So they can weigh the evidence and hopefully come to a just verdict. However when relevant evidence is withheld from the jury you can't expect them to come to a just verdict.
In this case the jury was asked to determine whether or not the defendant was acting with a callous disregard for human life when he was driving drunk and speeding and killed a little girl. The defendant was arguing that he was not acting in such a manner but he never took the stand to testify as to what his state of mind was. Instead he hid behind his silence.
So the question is, in this case, where the issue is the defendant's state of mind, would it be relevant to show that even before he was given his worthless Miranda warning he had zipped his mouth and was refusing to even inquire as to the condition of the kid he just killed or the other victims in the car?
In other words should the jury be told about his demeanor at the scene? Should that evidence include the fact that he didn't seem to care about anyone other than himself and that he was trying to protect himself from incrimination rather than concerning himself with the human damage he had inflicted?
Would you have kept this information from the jury if you were the judge?
If the guy was laughing making statements that showed he obviously didn’t care, I would be a lot more inclined to let the jury hear. If he was simply silent, it could mean a number of things. Can the jury actually determine why he was silent? I’m not convinced of it.