In the case of Frank v. United States in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a federal court could use its discretion to dismiss an indictment due to pre-indictment delay. The petitioner, Frank, was indicted for tax evasion several years after the alleged crime took place and argued that his defense had been prejudiced by this delay. However, the Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional right to be free from pre-indictment delay and thus it cannot form grounds for dismissal of an indictment unless actual prejudice can be demonstrated against defendant's ability to receive a fair trial. It also stated that mere allegations of faded memories or unavailability of witnesses are insufficient; specific proof must be provided showing how these factors have impaired one’s defense beyond repair. Therefore, Frank's conviction was upheld as he failed to demonstrate such prejudice.

In the dissenting opinion for Frank v. United States, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold Frank's conviction violated his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. He contended that allowing an FBI agent who was not present at the alleged crime scene to testify about evidence collected by other agents constituted hearsay and should have been inadmissible. Furthermore, he believed this ruling set a dangerous precedent which could potentially undermine defendants' rights in future cases. According to Justice Douglas, permitting such testimony effectively allowed law enforcement agencies to act as both investigator and witness, thereby compromising their objectivity and violating principles of due process.