United States v. Roper’s Empirical Analysis
135 F.3d 430 · 1998
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably United States v. Salgado (2001), United States v. Campbell (2002)
13 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Dunnigan · Michelson v. United States · Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis v. Carver · Jones v. Howard · Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The salient issue is the role the defendant played in relation to the activity for which the court held him or her accountable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once [Roper] ... placed his character into issue by his direct testimony in support of his entrapment defense and by affirmatively stating that he had not at any time previously engaged in similar drug or drug-related transactions, Roper ‘opened the door’ for the government to discredit his character during its cross-examination, as the government effectively accomplished, and by introducing extrinsic, substantive, rebuttal evidence of his criminal history of previous cocaine base sales without resorting to or relying upon Rule 404(b) and the limitations of its notice requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dixon v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.