Answer:
The Miranda v Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright cases were similar in the sense that the both cases resulted in "expanded protections" for people "accused of crimes".
Explanation:
- In both the cases of the Miranda v Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright the statement was made admissible only when the individual understands their rights.
- So the "Supreme Court" ruled the defendant's statements as inadmissible until they were informed about their right to have their own attorney during the questioning process in both the cases.
