Darlene was arrested on a murder charge. She was given Miranda warnings and refused to talk further with the police. At trial, she testified in her own defense. She recounted in some detail her whereabouts on the day of the crime and explained why she could not have committed the crime. On cross-examination and over defense objection, the prosecution emphasized the fact that she did not tell the police this story following her arrest. The prosecution thereby suggested that her testimony was false. Darlene was convicted. On appeal, she claims error in the prosecutor's cross-examination. Her conviction will most probably be
affirmed, because Darlene's silence at time of arrest is tantamount to a prior inconsistent statement, giving rise to an inference that the story was fabricated.  affirmed, because Darlene's silence was not used as direct evidence but only for impeachment, a purpose consistent with legitimate cross-examination.  reversed, because post-arrest silence constituted Darlene's exercise of her Miranda rights and use of that silence against her at trial violated due process.  reversed, because to require the defense to acquaint the prosecution with Darlene's testimony prior to trial would constitute unconstitutional pretrial discover