Is there any reason to impeach a defendant for not invoking his right to counsel post-arrest?

The testimony was improper, and it was elicited deliberately rather than blurted out. Still, the sole reference to Mathews' invocation of his right to counsel came during one police officer's testimony. The Government did not raise this invocation in any of its jury addresses or other witness examinations. Thus, "this was not a case in which the government sought to impeach the defendant based on his post-arrest silence, or to claim some significance in the defendant's refusal to answer a particular question." United States v. Grubczak, 793 F.2d 458, 462 (2d Cir. 1986).