In the 1993 case of Kitrich Powell v. Nevada, the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a delay in bringing an accused to trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The defendant, Mr. Powell, was arrested for robbery and murder but wasn't brought to trial until more than eight months later due to court congestion and scheduling conflicts with his public defender's other cases. He argued that this delay infringed upon his constitutional rights under the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that while there had been some negligence on part of state officials causing delays in proceedings, it did not rise up to level constituting deliberate attempt by government authorities or prosecutors trying deliberately delaying trials so as they could hamper defense’s ability presenting its case effectively at time when memories were fresh witnesses available readily. Furthermore, considering factors such as length of delay (which was not excessively long), reason for delay (court congestion and attorney scheduling issues rather than intentional stalling), defendant's assertion of his right (he did assert it) and prejudice caused by delay (no significant harm shown), no violation occurred according to Barker v Wingo criteria used evaluating speedy-trial claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Kitrich Powell v. Nevada, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to uphold Powell's conviction despite a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was incorrect. He contended that this case should have been dismissed due to an unreasonable delay in bringing it to trial, which violated Powell’s constitutional rights. The justice believed that the 21-month delay between arrest and trial was excessive and unjustified by any compelling state interest or evidence of deliberate obstruction on part of the defendant. Furthermore, he noted that such delays could potentially impair a defendant's ability to mount an effective defense due to fading memories or loss of crucial witnesses over time. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority’s ruling as it undermined one of fundamental protections provided by our Constitution - ensuring swift justice for all accused individuals.