context: We will reverse the district court because of an erroneous jury instruction only if we are left with a substantial and ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations. Pursuant to the law of this Circuit, exclusive control over the object is not required in order to establish constructive possession.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 705 F.2d 432, 433
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that constructive possession need not be exclusive but may be shared by others
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Knight, 705 F.2d 432, 433 (11th Cir.1983) (holding that constructive possession need not be exclusive but may be shared by others); see also United States v. Leonard, 138 F.3d 906, 909 (11th Cir.1998) (constructive possession defined as defendant’s ownership, dominion, or control over an object itself or dominion or control over the premises or the vehicle in which the object is concealed).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 138 F.3d 906, 909
citation_b.parenthetical: constructive possession defined as defendant's ownership, dominion, or control over an object itself or dominion or control over the premises or the vehicle in which the object is concealed
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Knight, 705 F.2d 432, 433 (11th Cir.1983) (holding that constructive possession need not be exclusive but may be shared by others); see also United States v. Leonard, 138 F.3d 906, 909 (11th Cir.1998) (constructive possession defined as defendant’s ownership, dominion, or control over an object itself or dominion or control over the premises or the vehicle in which the object is concealed).