context: The express assertion of the right to remain silent has been analyzed somewhat differently from silence itself, at least in the context of prearrest, pre-Miranda silence.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 386 Mass. 54, 62
citation_a.parenthetical: "[i]n general impeachment of a defendant with the fact of his [pre-Miranda,] pre-arrest silence should be approached with caution, and, whenever it is undertaken, it should be prefaced by a proper demonstration that it was 'natural' to expect the defendant to speak in the circumstances"
citation_a.sentence: See Commonwealth v. Sazama, 339 Mass. at 157-159; Commonwealth v. Burke, 339 Mass. at 532-533; Commonwealth v. Nickerson, 386 Mass. 54, 62 (1982) (“[i]n general impeachment of a defendant with the fact of his [pre-Miranda,] pre-arrest silence should be approached with caution, and, whenever it is undertaken, it should be prefaced by a proper demonstration that it was ‘natural’ to expect the defendant to speak in the circumstances”); Commonwealth v. Thompson, 431 Mass. 108, 116-117, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 864 (2000).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: impeachment of defendant with prearrest, pre-Miranda silence not found to violate Federal Constitution
citation_b.sentence: See also Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980) (impeachment of defendant with prearrest, pre-Miranda silence not found to violate Federal Constitution).