With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". full cooperation. The court stated: “A defendant should not be permitted to twist his Miranda protection to shield lies or false impressions from government attack.” Id. Accord Earnest v. Dorsey, 87 F.3d 1123, 1135 (10th Cir.) (“reference to post-arrest silence is permissible for rebuttal purposes when a defendant implies that he cooperated with the police”) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1016, 117 S.Ct. 527, 136 L.Ed.2d 414 (1996). See also State v. McIntosh, 358 S.C. 432, 595 S.E.2d 484, 491 (2004) (agreeing with principle that a defendant may open the door to evidence of post -Miranda silence by creating the impression that he cooperated with the police, but finding no assertion of cooperation in that case); State v. Cockrell, 306 Wis.2d 52, 741 N.W.2d 267, 274 (App.) (<HOLDING>), review denied, 306 Wis.2d 46, 744 N.W.2d 295

A: holding that there was no interrogation where the police asked only routine booking questions that did not relate even tangentially to criminal activity moreover there is no evidence that the defendant was particularly susceptible to these questions or that police somehow used the questions to elicit an incriminating response from the defendant
B: holding failure to object to conditioning instructions waived error arising from the jurys failure to answer question when answer could not be implied and that lack of objection waived right to new trial to have jury answer questions
C: holding that where a witness who testifies under oath and is subject to crossexamination in a prior state court proceeding explicitly refuses to answer the same questions at trial the refusal to answer is inconsistent with his prior testimony
D: recognizing that evidence that cockrell cooperated with the police permitted the state to elicit that cockrell declined to answer questions after his arrest
D.