In the case of Wingo, Warden v. Wedding (1973), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendant Charles Edward Wedding, who had been convicted for armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment by a Kentucky court. The issue at hand was whether or not his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated due to an eight-year delay between his indictment and trial while he was serving time in another state's prison system. The Court held that although there were delays caused by bureaucratic procedures, these did not violate Wedding’s constitutional rights as they were justified under Barker v. Wingo (1972) which established four factors for determining violation: length of delay, reason for the delay, defendant's assertion of their right and prejudice towards the defendant resulting from the delay. In this case it was found that no deliberate attempt was made to hamper defense nor any significant prejudice against him occurred due to said delays.

In the dissenting opinion for Wingo, Warden v. Wedding (1973), Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Rule 48(b) and its application to this case. He argued that the rule was intended to protect defendants from undue delays in prosecution rather than guarantee a speedy trial per se. According to him, it is not appropriate for federal courts to dismiss indictments because they believe state proceedings have been too slow unless there has been an unreasonable delay after indictment or arrest by federal authorities themselves. Furthermore, he contended that even if Rule 48(b) were interpreted as providing a right to a speedy trial, dismissal of charges would be an excessively severe remedy except in cases where actual prejudice could be demonstrated due to delay.