IN HALE, THE PROSECUTOR ATTEMPTED TO IMPEACH THE DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY BY CAUSING HIM TO ADMIT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT HE HAD NOT OFFERED EXCULPATORY INFORMATION CONTAINED IN HIS TESTIMONY AT THE TIME OF POLICE INTERROGATION. THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE COLLOQUY BUT REFUSED TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL, AND HALE WAS CONVICTED. A COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED. THE AUTHOR CRITICIZES THE MAJORITY'S FAILURE TO BASE ITS DECISION ON CONSTITUTIONAL RATHER THAN EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS, AS THIS LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN FOR FUTURE USE OF A DEFENDANT'S SILENCE DURING POLICE INTERROGATION FOR OTHER PURPOSES AT TRIAL.