Your ruling then is based on relevancy rather than fifth amendment rights. That’s fine. That is discretionary. However this judge ruled it relevant and it was challenged on constitutional grounds.
Do you believe that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated?
Do to statements you have made, I’m not convinced of it.
If there is a clause regarding corrupting the process by allowing information in that cannot be judged, then there might be an argument for it.
You simply cannot come to a reasoned conclusion based on the premise he remained silent. He may have felt very bad about what he had done.
Allowing the information in so the jury could rule that he didn’t care would not be conducive to a fact based determination. It would be pure conjecture.