relief, because it was legally sufficient. See Webb v. State, 347 So.2d 1054, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (reversing convictions on direct appeal, finding trial court erred by allowing prosecutor to impeach defendant by his silence after arrest; “we think there was nothing inconsistent with Webb’s police station silence and his alibi testimony at trial, and we also think the cross-examination as to appellant’s pretrial silence violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Smith v. State, 340 So.2d 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)”); Lee v. State, 422 So.2d 928, 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (state court is free to place greater restrictions on use of post-arrest silence than do federal courts), rev. denied, 431 So.2d 989 (Fla.1983); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331, 334 (Fla.1978) (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. State, 711 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Fla.
holding that evidence of a defendants invocation of the right to remain silent ordinarily is not admissible at the defendants criminal trial holding that two general objections were insufficient to properly preserve the issue holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review holding that in context of criminal trial defendants right to remain silent cannot be compromised by prosecutorial comments that cast aspersions on its exercise holding that contemporaneous objections were required to preserve for appeal improper comments on defendants right to remain silent