Your Honor. He’s not— A. I didn’t know the car was stolen. MR. CONN: He wasn’t compelled to make— THE COURT: Sustained. Redirect examination and recross examination were then completed and the defendant appellant’s case closed. Following instructions and closing arguments, the jury entered into deliberations ultimately finding the appellant guilty of receiving stolen property and fixing his punishment at two years of imprisonment. This appeal followed. On appeal, Jackson maintains that the above-quoted exchange was a blatant violation of § 11 of the Kentucky Constitution, protecting the privilege of an accused from having his post-arrest silence questioned at trial. Bradley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 261 S.W.2d 642, 643 (1953); Neimeyer v. Commonwealth, Ky., 533 S.W.2d 218, 222 (1976), (<HOLDING>). Anticipating the response of the Commonwealth
holding that because the fifth amendment protects against the use of coerced statements at trial not mere compulsion a violation of the requirements set forth in miranda v arizona 384 us 436 86 sct 1602 16 led2d 694 1966 did not give rise to a  1983 claim recognizing miranda v arizona 384 us 436 468 86 sct 1602 1624 16 led2d 694 1966 holding that police must consider the age of a juvenile suspect when determining whether the juvenile is in custody for purposes of miranda warnings see miranda v arizona 384 us 436 86 sct 1602 16 led2d 694 1966 holding that the admission of a statement obtained in violation of miranda v arizona 384 us 436 86 sct 1602 16 led2d 694 1966 resulted in harmless error because the defendant repeated the substance of the statement in a later admissible statement holding that in order to show municipal liability for an officers actions under monell v dept of soc servs 436 us 658 694 98 sct 2018 56 led2d 611 1978 a plaintiff must demonstrate one of the following 1