The US Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona reaffirmed what earlier decision?

The correct choice relates directly to the broader context of the right to counsel and self-incrimination within the U.S. legal system. The Miranda v. Arizona decision, issued in 1966, specifically focused on the requirement for law enforcement to inform individuals of their rights upon arrest, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. This ruling aimed to protect against self-incrimination and ensure fair treatment during the interrogation process, aligning closely with the principles established in prior cases concerning the rights of the accused.

The case most closely tied to this aspect of civil rights is Gideon v. Wainwright, which affirmed the right to legal counsel for defendants unable to afford an attorney in criminal cases. However, Miranda v. Arizona is not a reaffirmation of Gideon; rather, it builds upon the implications of the Sixth Amendment in conjunction with the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

Therefore, the correct option is “None of the above,” as none of the listed cases directly serve as a reaffirmation of Miranda v. Arizona, despite sharing common themes regarding the rights of defendants in the legal process.