Can a detective compel a defendant to give a statement to the police?

In People v. Ramos (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 195?a more recent pre-Salinas case?a detective was permitted to testify that he spoke to the defendant at least three times on the telephone, she was consistently argumentative and uncooperative, she refused to give a statement over the telephone or in person, she would not talk about the incident at all, and she did not go to the police station despite her agreement to do so. (Id. at p. 205.) The parties stipulated at oral argument on appeal?and the appellate court agreed?that the defendant had expressly invoked her Fifth Amendment rights by stating that she did not want to talk to the detective. (Id. at pp. 206-207.) A person's invocation of the right to remain silent, the court noted, cannot be used as evidence of guilt. (Id. at p. 206.) But because the defense had not preserved its Fifth Amendment objection, and the matter was presented to the trial court before the detective testified that the defendant had invoked her right rather than simply remaining silent, the court did not base its ruling on the Fifth Amendment. (Id. at pp. 208-209 & fn. 14.) As the court explained, deciding whether precustody silence violates the Fifth Amendment involves different legal principles than deciding whether there has been an express invocation of the right to remain silent. (Id. at p. 208.) The court ultimately ruled that any error in admitting the testimony was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt. (Id. at p. 209.)