to talk to the police. State: Why not talk to the police if what you are saying is true. Defendant: Because I could always talk to them. State: You could? When? Defendant: Whenever I got my lawyer. State: And did you do that? Defendant: I got my lawyer. State: Did you talk to the police? Defendant: They never came and talked to me. State: Oh, did you[r] attorney ever invite them to come talk to you and say, hey, we got a meeting? Defendant: I mean, I figured it was probably too much — too late then. State: Oh. So you didn’t really want to talk to the police? Defendant: I mean, I never — it came up. That never — it was never in the conversation. This line of questioning clearly constituted comments on the appellant’s right to remain silent. See State v. Hoggins, 718 So.2d 761 (Fla.1998) (<HOLDING>). Thus, it appears counsel may have been
holding a prosecutor may not comment on a defendants silence holding that an infringement on the defendants fundamental due process right in the form of a comment on the defendants silence by the prosecution did not rise to level of plain error holding that the government may comment on a defendants prearrest premiranda silence as well as his postarrest pr emiranda silence holding that it is improper for prosecutor to comment on accuseds postarrest silence holding that if comment is fairly susceptible of being construed by the jury as a comment on the defendants exercise of his or her right to remain silent it violates the defendants state constitutional right to silence whether comment was introduced in states caseinchief or for impeachment purposes holding that the state may not impeach a defendant with his postarrest or postmiranda silence