Whether a jury should be instructed on the core principle that a law enforcement officer's use of deadly force in self-defense is not constitutionally unreasonable when the officer has probable cause to believe there is a threat of serious physical harm

question presented is whether a jury should be instructed on this core principle of law. In the decision below, the district court gave a standard Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989), instruction on reasonableness of non-deadly force that was affirmed on appeal after the Eleventh Circuit concluded the Graham factors outlined in its standard jury instruction accurately stated the law on reasonableness for all excessive force cases. The Eleventh Circuit’s one-sizefits-all approach to the question of deadly force conflicts with the prevailing law of this Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 US. 1 (1985), and with that of other circuits. Resolution of this conflict is essential to unify the law on this vitally important public policy question. The specific questions presented are: e Does the reasonableness of deadly force in self-defense turn on whether the officer had probable cause to believe there was a threat of serious physical harm to a law enforcement officer or to others? e Does a jury instruction on Graham v. Connor accurately state the law regarding the reasonableness of deadly force in self-defense?