Opinion ID: 3038252
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of the Term “Arrest”

Text: Appellant asserts that the District Court’s use of the term “arrest” in its excessive force jury instruction warrants a new trial because there was no false arrest claim. Appellant argues that the central issue of the case was the reasonableness of Ralston’s use of force, and that this had nothing to do with the concept of “arrest.” (Appellant’s Br. 18.) With respect to reviewing the jury instructions, “[i]f looking at the charge as a 6 whole, the instructions were capable of confusing and thereby misleading the jury, we must reverse.” Mosley v. Wilson, 102 F.3d 85, 94 (3d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A trial court has substantial discretion with respect to specific wording of jury instructions and need not give a proposed instruction so long as the essential points are covered by the instructions that are given. See Douglas v. Owens, 50 F.3d 1226, 1233 (3d Cir. 1995) (“No litigant has a right to a jury instruction of his choice or in the manner and words of its own preference.”). With respect to a claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force, the claim should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its reasonableness standard. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989). “[T]he reasonableness inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Id. at 397 (citations omitted). Upon reviewing the District Court’s jury instructions with respect to the excessive force claim, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by including the word “arrest.” The instructions, as a whole, stated the correct legal standard. They were not capable of being confusing or misleading to the jury. See Mosley, 102 F.3d at 94. We will affirm. 7