In the United States v. Gouveia et al., 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners in administrative segregation pending a disciplinary hearing are not entitled to appointment of counsel during their time in segregation before charges are brought against them. The defendants were inmates suspected of murder and placed into solitary confinement while an investigation was conducted. They argued that this period constituted a "critical stage" requiring legal representation under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel clause. However, the court held that this right does not begin until formal judicial proceedings have been initiated (i.e., by way of indictment, information, arraignment or preliminary hearing), which had not occurred at the time they were segregated from general prison population for investigative purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Gouveia et al., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that pre-indictment delay should be considered a violation of an individual's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The majority held that this right does not apply until formal charges are filed; however, the dissenters contended this interpretation was too narrow. They believed it failed to consider situations where law enforcement intentionally delays charging someone in order to gain an unfair advantage or undermine their defense preparation. This could potentially lead to abuses of power and infringe upon individuals' rights. Furthermore, they pointed out that other constitutional protections do not have such strict timing requirements and can apply before formal proceedings begin.