1. Graham v. Connor was a case about claims of excessive force when detaining a civilian. It also ultimately provided the tests that should be considered if law enforcement is accused of violating a person’s rights during stop and seizure. The applicableness of the Fourth versus the Eight Amendment to judge the validity of excessive force.

2. Dethorne Graham, a diabetic, began to have an insulin reaction and asked a friend, William Berry, to take him to a convenience store so that he could purchase some juice. Berry picked Graham up from his home and drove him to a local store. Once inside the store, Graham felt the line was too long, so he quickly left the store and asked Berry to take him to a nearby friend’s house to get some juice. …show more content…
This means that Graham had not proven his case and that there was no reasonable alternative verdict. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit of the United States Supreme Court agreed that a reasonable jury would not have ruled in Graham’s favor.
3. The lower court addressed the issue of excessive force and malicious intent. The higher court addressed the balance of civilian rights and officer rights. It also addressed whether an objective reasonableness test should have been used in determining the outcome, or if a subjective standard, using hindsight, was appropriate. The subjective standard was written in the Eighth Amendment, whereas the objective standard from the Fourth Amendment was deemed applicable to Graham’s case.
4. Holdings. The District Court in Charlotte granted the City’s request for a directed verdict. It was directed that a reasonable jury who applied the Johnson v. Glick test to Graham’s evidence could not find that the force applied was constitutionally excessive. The city, applying a four-factor test for determining when excessive use of force is with cause, asserted that force was used with good faith. On appeal, Graham argued that the lower court sided in error by requiring Graham to prove that Connor had malicious intent to cause him harm during the stop. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision, stating that the subjective test