United States v. Roman
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
356 F. Supp. 434 (1973) (affirmed at 484 F.2d 1271 (1973), 415 U.S. 978 (1974))

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Heng Roman and Lee Koo (defendants) met in Singapore with another person to discuss their plans to illegally import heroin into the United States. Heng and Koo did not know that the other individual was a federal informer. Heng and Koo picked up the informer’s empty suitcase and returned it to the informer filled with 2.5 kilograms of heroin. Heng drove the informer with his suitcase to the airport for a flight to New York. At the airport, the informer turned over the suitcase, without Heng’s knowledge, to the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD). The informer flew to New York. The BNDD removed the heroin, refilled the suitcase with soap powder, and sent the heroin and the suitcase to New York. Once in New York, the informer picked up the suitcase from the BNDD, placed it in a locker, and then met again with Roman and Koo, who had also arrived in New York. Heng and Koo then offered to sell the heroin to federal agents who were posing as drug buyers. Heng and Koo were arrested and charged with conspiracy and possession of heroin with intent to distribute. Both Heng and Koo were found guilty of conspiracy, and the judge reserved judgment on the charge of possession with intent to distribute. At trial, Heng and Koo claimed a defense of impossibility for the possession with intent to distribute charge, because the suitcase had not in fact contained any heroin.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bryan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.