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.
Then you would keep that information from the jury, is that correct? You would not give them the opportunity to determine its relevance and would instead foist your own opinion on that subject on them by denying them the opportunity to determine that on their own?
I think it is very relevant. It is arguable about whether it is an indication of his state of mind and therefore the jury should be allowed to consider it. To deny facts from the jury because you don't think it is important or you have a different opinion as to its meaning is to impose your own opinion on the justice system and to deny the jury the opportunity to come to the opposite conclusion.