## Facts

- David Wayne Greenfield was arrested in Florida for sexual battery.
- After arrest, police gave Greenfield *Miranda* warnings on three occasions.
- Each time, Greenfield invoked his right to remain silent and stated he wanted to speak with an attorney before answering questions.
- Greenfield pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
- At trial, the prosecutor argued in closing that Greenfield’s post-*Miranda* refusals to speak without counsel showed comprehension inconsistent with insanity.
- Over defense objection, the trial court allowed the argument, and Greenfield was convicted.
- A Florida appellate court affirmed, reasoning the bar on comment about silence did not apply when insanity was at issue.
- On federal habeas review, the court of appeals ordered a new trial based on due process limits on using post-*Miranda* silence.

## Issues

1. Whether due process permits the prosecution to use a defendant’s postarrest, post-*Miranda* silence and request for counsel as substantive evidence of sanity to rebut an insanity defense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the federal court of appeals.
- The Court held that the prosecutor’s use of Greenfield’s postarrest, post-*Miranda* silence as evidence of sanity violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court rejected a distinction between using post-*Miranda* silence to prove guilt versus to rebut an insanity defense.
- The Court distinguished cases allowing use of refusals where the government had not given *Miranda*-type assurances that silence would not be penalized.

## Legal Principles

- After *Miranda* warnings, due process bars the State from using a defendant’s postarrest silence or request for counsel against the defendant because the warnings carry an implicit assurance that silence will not be used to impose a penalty.
- The due process violation does not depend on whether the silence is used for impeachment or as affirmative proof, nor on whether the subject is guilt or sanity; the unfairness is the government’s breach of its assurance.
- The probative value of a defendant’s invocation of *Miranda* rights (including as possible evidence of comprehension) does not justify using that invocation as substantive evidence against the defendant when the State has provided *Miranda* warnings.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that when a defendant has received *Miranda* warnings, the prosecution may not argue that the defendant’s ensuing silence or request for counsel proves sanity, because using that silence as evidence against the defendant violates Fourteenth Amendment due process.


Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (1986)