Roberson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 state decisions

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[p]roof amounting only to strong suspicion or mere probability will not suffice.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hubert v. State · Lair v. State

2. “There is nothing else to link [Roberson] to the cocaine. He was not under the influence of drugs. In fact, no drugs of any kind, drug paraphernalia, or money was found on his person or near the driver's seat. There was no drug odor in the car. Appellant was cooperative throughout the stop and made no furtive gestures. The cocaine was not found until almost twenty minutes had passed since appellant got out of the car at [the Trooper's] request, while Lee and [the second passenger] remained inside during much of that time. No statements were made by any of the three connecting [Roberson] to the drugs.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lair v. State

3. “simply restates the common-sense notion that a person-such as a father, son, spouse, roommate, or friend-may jointly possess property like a house but not necessarily jointly possess the contraband found in that house. " Id. (emphasis added). Thus, "[w]hen the accused is not in exclusive possession of the place where the substance is found, it cannot be concluded that the accused had knowledge of and control over the contraband unless there are additional independent facts and circumstances which affirmatively link the accused to the contraband.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lair v. State