▁which ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁revers ed ▁the ▁lower ▁court ' s ▁finding ▁and ▁over turn ed ▁the ▁pet ition er ' s ▁conv iction , ▁on ▁the ▁grounds ▁that ▁it ▁was ▁fund ament ally ▁unf air ▁for ▁the ▁pro sec utor ▁to ▁comment ▁during ▁the ▁court ▁proceed ings ▁on ▁the ▁pet ition er ' s ▁silence ▁invoked ▁as ▁a ▁result ▁of ▁a ▁Mir anda ▁warning . ▁ ▁Background ▁After ▁his ▁arrest ▁in ▁Florida ▁for ▁sexual ▁battery , ▁Green field ▁was ▁given ▁three ▁separate ▁Mir anda ▁warnings . ▁Each ▁time , ▁he ▁exerc ised ▁his ▁right ▁to ▁remain ▁silent ▁and ▁requested ▁to ▁speak ▁with ▁an ▁att orney ▁before ▁answering ▁questions . ▁At ▁his ▁trial ▁in ▁the ▁Circ uit ▁Court ▁for ▁Sar as ota ▁County , ▁the ▁respond ent ▁ple aded ▁not ▁guilty ▁by ▁reason ▁of ▁ins an ity . ▁During ▁closing ▁arguments ▁in ▁the ▁Florida ▁trial ▁court , ▁the ▁pro sec utor ▁review ed ▁the ▁police ▁officer ' s ▁testim ony , ▁over ▁defense ▁coun sel ' s ▁ob jection , ▁arg uing ▁that ▁Green field ' s ▁silence ▁after ▁receiving ▁Mir anda ▁warnings ▁was ▁evidence ▁of ▁his ▁san ity . ▁The ▁testim ony ▁described ▁the ▁occasions ▁when ▁respond ent ▁had ▁exerc ised ▁his ▁right ▁to ▁remain ▁silent . ▁The ▁pro sec utor ▁suggested ▁that ▁respond ent ' s ▁repeated ▁ref us als ▁to ▁answer ▁questions ▁without ▁first ▁consult ing ▁an ▁att orney ▁" dem on str ated ▁a ▁degree ▁of ▁compreh ension ▁that ▁was ▁incons istent ▁with ▁his ▁claim ▁of ▁ins