Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for determining what constitutes a comment on post-arrest silence is fairly liberal. “If the comment is fairly susceptible of being construed by the jury as a comment on the defendant’s exercise of his or her right to remain silent, it violates the defendant’s right to silence.” Id. at 769; see also State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986). Thus, “Evidence or argument that is fairly susceptible of being deemed a comment on the right of silence should be excluded.” Giorgetti v. State, 821 So.2d 417, 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see also State v. Smith, 573 So.2d 306, 317 (Fla.1990) (“[Cjourts must prohibit all evidence or argument that is fairly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as a comment on the right of silence.”); Dixon v. State, 627 So.2d 19, 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (<HOLDING>). Here, Detective Kent’s response that Green 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that com ments that are fairly susceptible to being interpreted as comments on the defendants silence are generally reversible error (B) holding that if comment is fairly susceptible of being construed by the jury as a comment on the defendants exercise of his or her right to remain silent it violates the defendants state constitutional right to silence whether comment was introduced in states caseinchief or for impeachment purposes holding that the state may not impeach a defendant with his postarrest or postmiranda silence (C) holding that constructive amendments which are per se reversible under harmless error analysis are also per se reversible under plain error analysis (D) holding that comment on defendants silence was not reversible error because inter alia it did not have the effect of being probative on guilt or innocence (E) holding under plain error review that prosecutions repeated references to defendants silence in a one day trial were not harmless despite defendants responsive comments on silence
Output (English): holding that comment on defendants silence was not reversible error because inter alia it did not have the effect of being probative on guilt or innocence