“What good is a Miranda protection if his silence prior to being advised of it can be used as evidence of guilt?”
Do you think that a person that is drunk and plows into a car at a high rate of speed should walk because the prosecution noted in his trial that he was silent prior to having his rights read?
If the man was drunk and drove at 67 in a 35, that should be sufficient proof of ‘depraved indifference to human life’. The silence before or after should be immaterial. If it was ruled as exculpatory, the trial should have been overturned as a mistrial (presumably by a higher court) and the man should have been tried again.
Not unless that figured into the verdict. If it did, it should be subject to Constitutional challenge.