Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Klande (D) and others were indicted for conspiring to import and distribute marijuana. At trial, the marijuana involved was not available, so the prosecution intended to have a demonstration on how a drug-sniffing dog detected the marijuana. A newspaper article was published and included comments by the judge, the government prosecutor, and one of the defense counsels. D moved for a mistrial because the prosecutor had attested to the dog's reliability. The district court granted the mistrial. D then moved to have the indictment dismissed on double jeopardy grounds. The motion was denied. D appealed; the mistrial was a sua sponte declaration by the district court which barred reprosecution.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.