Replies

What specifically in the language of the fifth amendment prohibits the prosecution from presenting evidence that you didn’t say anything at the scene of a deadly accident that you caused?

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

By way of the 6th Amendment:

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

If something he says could give justify [or contribute to] being accused, prior to any actual accusation, then the only way to avoid all these is to say nothing.
BUT if he can be arrested for not saying something prior to charges, and have that silence used against him, how can he be guaranteed he will not be forced to testify against himself?
He cannot; as saying something could open him to prosecution, and not saying something can be used as evidence against him [in a not-yet-extant accusation].

This sort of situation is morally reprehensible because it is inherently unjust; just like the legal Catch-22 in the trial of Giles Corey.