United States v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
913 F.2d 211 · 1990
Citation profile
81 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably State v. Hinton (1993), United States v. Meshack (2000)
81 federal appellate · 5 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 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Batson v. Kentucky · Allen v. United States · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Rogers v. United States
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Binder contends that this evidence is insufficient to convict him under § 856(a)(1). He asserts that the primary “purpose” of the Hearth Street condominium was as Robert’s residence and that Congress intended § 856 to apply only to facilities for which drug trafficking is the sole purpose and not one of several purposes. He contends that any other interpretation would mean that casual drug users risk felony convictions for drug use in their own homes. Had Congress intended convictions under § 856 to be limited to those who open or maintain facilities having cocaine manufacturing as their sole purpose, it would have said so. Such a narrow construction as Binder suggests would eviscerate the statute, since it is highly unlikely that anyone would openly maintain a place for the purpose of manufacturing and distributing cocaine without some sort of “legitimate” cover — as a residence, a nightclub, a retail business, or a storage barn.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he procedures used to investigate allegations of juror misconduct and the decision as to whether to hold an evidentiary hearing are matters which rest solely within the sound discretion of the district court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 856 states that it is an offense to maintain a place for 'the purpose' of manufacturing or distributing cocaine. The meaning of that phrase lies within the common understanding of jurors and needs no further elaboration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.