In People v. Jaspal (1991) 234 Cal. App. 3d 1446, the defendant, a suspect in his roommate's murder, fled from California to England. At his extradition hearing, the defendant invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, but called numerous family members who testified that the defendant had been in England when the roommate was murdered. At trial, appellant admitted he was present in the apartment when the victim was shot, but claimed he was drunk and asleep when the murder occurred. The prosecution introduced evidence that appellant sat silent while extradition witnesses testified falsely on his behalf and stressed this point in his closing argument. The Court held a defendant's choice to remain silent at an extradition proceeding, which is criminal in nature, goes to the heart of our requirement that it is the prosecution's burden to prove its case and that the defendant need not testify in his own behalf and his silence is not to be used against him. However, "in order for Griffin error to be prejudicial, the improper comment or instruction must either fill an evidentiary gap in the prosecution's case or 'touch a live nerve' in the defense. " (People v. Jaspal, supra, 234 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1460.) In Jaspal, the prosecutor's argument filled an important gap in the prosecution's case, i.e., the low credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. It also touched a live nerve in the defense by pointing out the inconsistency in the defense used in England and the one presented at trial. Moreover, the prosecutor strongly implied that the defendant's silence at the extradition hearing could be interpreted a consciousness of guilt.