In the case of Klopper v. North Carolina, 1966, Peter Klopper was charged with criminal trespass in North Carolina but his trial ended in a hung jury. The state then suspended prosecution indefinitely which prevented him from seeking a resolution to the charges against him. He appealed this decision on grounds that it violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process under the U.S Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Klopper, stating that an indefinite suspension of prosecution did indeed violate these rights. It held that the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment applied not only during actual criminal prosecutions but also between arrest and indictment or during periods when prosecution has been suspended indefinitely by authorities without consent from defendants. This landmark ruling established important precedent for ensuring individuals' constitutional rights are upheld throughout all stages of legal proceedings - even when those proceedings have been paused or delayed by state action.

In the dissenting opinion for Klopper v. North Carolina, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to apply the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial to state proceedings was misguided. He contended that this interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause overstepped federal authority and infringed upon states' rights. Furthermore, he believed it was inappropriate for federal courts to interfere with state criminal procedures unless there were exceptional circumstances or egregious violations of fundamental fairness. In his view, North Carolina’s practice did not meet these criteria as it allowed indefinite postponement only when necessary in public interest and provided safeguards against potential abuses by requiring regular judicial review of each case’s status.