>>The question is, does he have a right not to have his
>exercise of his rights brought up in court, which is a
>separate question
>
>Yes he absolutely has that right. An attorney cannot allude to
>or ask about a defendant remaining silent at trial.
>
>For example-lets say a defendant chooses not to testify during
>trial. A prosecutor cannot argue or imply anything with regard
>to the defendant choosing not to testify.
>
>

But didn't the ADA just do that, in this case? What does it mean that the ADA "cannot (could not)" do that, that there will definitely be a mistrial? (I'm seeing legal experts say they don't expect there to be one, so I'm kinda presuming that there won't be any actual teeth to this supposed prohibition, which is my point).

*EDIT* Yo, this reminds me of that okp thread about Spades! I recall how some people thought that not playing a spade in your hand was cheating, while others considered it to be a part of the game ("if you get caught, there is a prescribed penalty, that means it's a valid move that is high risk, etc.").

If there isn't a mistrial in the Rittenhouse case, isn't bringing up a defendant's remaining silent just a high risk play, not something that is actually forbidden? I think we should have actual teeth on things you "cannot do"--the wiggle room on these matters is one of the things that enables unequal justice for the powerful...