Don't bet on it. His silence in the situation was relevant evidence independent of any statement of incrimination. It is one thing to button your lip, but it is entirely another thing to act indifferent to people who are dead or dying in a car wreck in which you were involved.
That was the issue. And that is why it is a correct ruling.
I’m not familiar with the facts of this case. Did the police not know someone was injured?
It's not that easy.
"How are the people in that car?"
"Which car is that?"
"The one over there."
"You mean the one you hit when you were speeding?"
"I didn't say that. You know, the other car."
...
Being forced to open your mouth to avoid being considered as wantonly indifferent to human life necessarily requires you to risk incriminating yourself.
We may now need to learn how to plead the Fifth along with Driver's Ed.
It would seem to me he kept his mouth shut because he had probably heard that talking to the police will hurt you. It no way shows he intended the accident. It no way means he had no compassion for the other party. Your logic is as flawed as the prosecutions. Opening his mouth would not have done the girl any good or would not have prevented the accident. What could he have said that would exonerated him? If he is guilty of recklessness or DUI, then yes there are laws against that. That's what should have to be proved, an actual violation of the law.