You have a right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. But keeping mum also may be used against you, too, and defense attorneys don’t think that’s fair. The New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments from prosecutors and attorneys for three defendants who separately argued they were denied fair trials because jurors were told to consider why the suspects made the decision to remain silent when questioned by authorities. Under the Fifth Amendment, a person has the right to not incriminate themselves. But that federal protection only begins after a suspect has been read their rights, known as a Miranda warning. In New Jersey, the right to invoke one’s silence is slightly expanded. The Supreme Court has ruled that a suspect has the right to remain silent not just after their arrest, but “at or near the time of arrest.” Whether that choice to remain silent can be brought up at a trial is what the high court must now decide. The cases under consideration involve a man once convicted of killing his mother, a man who savagely stabbed a friend in the face with a broken beer bottle, and a man convicted of robbing a convenience store at gunpoint. Defense attorneys argued Tuesday that the state has the burden of proving guilt and that their clients have the right against self-incrimination, so a suspect’s silence shouldn’t be used to draw an inference of guilt. “Making reference at trial about what a defendant didn’t say to police is commenting on his silence,” said Alison Perrone, who represents Michael Tucker, convicted in the June 2000 death of his mother. The conviction was later overturned by an appeals panel; the state is appealing that decision. The state argued that a ruling against mentioning a defendant’s decision to remain silent would hobble authorities’ ability to investigate and prosecute suspects. The issue becomes even more complicated when defendants choose to answer some questions but decide to remain silent when asked other questions. Prosecutors say that a defendant could answer a question and then invoke the right to remain silent when asked again, thwarting investigators as they try to trip them up or find inconsistencies in statements. “All we’re asking is the ability to show the jury an inconsistency, or sometimes a. consciousness of guilt,” said Deputy Attorney General Deborah Bartolomey. “All we’re trying to do is to get at the truth.” Bartolomey argued that the choice to remain silent is, in essence, evidence of a person’s conduct. “This is a valid attack on the defendant’s credibility,” Bartolomey said. “Otherwise, the defendant is allowed to convert the shield of the right to remain silent into a sword.” But Justice Barry T. Albin seemed concerned about the sword becoming a double-edged one. “We’d rather they remain silent,” Albin said, “than be put in a position where they are compelled to perjure themselves or give false testimony.”