Andrew L. Weems v. United States

I join the opinion of the court, which cogently explains what it means for the government to be in possession, custody, or control of an item such that the government's disclosure obligations under Rule 16 (a)(1)(E) are triggered. I write separately to note only that in the parties' discussion of police "control" over discoverable items in this case, the parties never mentioned, either at trial or in their briefs, the particular terms of Officer Webster's outside employment at Wal-Mart. See ante at 302 (explaining that "control" may arise "by express agreement"). Specifically, we have not…