Sorry, but I cannot agree with you here. That Mr. Tom did not ask about the people in the other vehicle is a fact. The prosecutors ASSUMED that this fact somehow demonstrated Tom’s guilt, when it did no such thing. Someone who can’t distinguish between evidence and assumption, or who thinks that silence is “as good as a confession”, should be thrown off juries.
Under the ACLU interpretation of the constitution that would be a "FACT" which the jury should not be apprised of. Would you agree that the jury should be precluded from knowing that Mr. Tom held his tongue while a little girl was dying in front of him?
The prosecutors ASSUMED that this fact somehow demonstrated Tom’s guilt, when it did no such thing.
They argued it. The jury agreed with their argument. It is a logical conclusion to draw.
Someone who can’t distinguish between evidence and assumption, or who thinks that silence is “as good as a confession”, should be thrown off juries.
The jury is instructed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. If he was silent, they were free to draw whatever inference they could from that fact. It is relevant to his demeanor at the time of the accident and is hence, evidence of a guilty conscience.
I will ask you again. Should the jury have been prohibited from knowing this FACT? Or should it have come in as evidence?"