Noel v. Artson, 641 F.3d 580

A Baltimore County SWAT team obtained a no-knock search warrant after officer Gibbons found drug-related evidence at the Noel residence.
At 4:30 a.m. on January 21, 2005, fifteen officers breached the Noel home with a battering ram and deployed a flash-bang device.
Officer Artson entered the Noel bedroom and shot Cheryl Noel three times, alleging she held a gun and moved toward it; Cheryl died from the third shot.
The Noels sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment, including knock-and-announce violations, unreasonable entry, and excessive force.
After a nine-day trial, the district court instructed the jury on reasonableness under Graham v. Connor, and the jury returned a verdict for the officers.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding no reversible instructional or evidentiary errors required reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury instructions adequately informed the controlling legal principles	Noels argue the charge needed Waterman guidance on the third shot.	Charge, read as a whole, conveyed correct law and room to argue facts.	No reversible error; instructions adequate.
Whether Waterman v. Batton should have been given as a instruction	District court erred by not adopting Waterman’s sequence rationale.	Waterman not controlling; court did not abuse discretion choosing general reasonableness framework.	No abuse of discretion; Waterman instruction not required.
Whether the manner-of-execution instructions were insufficient	Jury needed explicit factors about post-entry tactics and Noel rights to defend themselves with a gun.	Instructions covered reasonableness of entry and method; general framework allowed argument.	No reversible error; proper framework given.
Whether testimony and demonstration by Officer Rose were admissible and harmless	Rose’s testimony and the reactionary-gap demonstration were improper lay opinions/excessive under Rule 403.	Testimony was within discretion; any error was harmless and not prejudicial.	Admissible; any error harmless.
Whether voir dire on Charles Noel's murder conviction was required	Venire should be questioned about prior conviction to avoid bias.	District court has broad discretion; limited questioning was reasonable.	No abuse; voir dire was within discretion.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonable force framework for excessive-force claims)
Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145 (1977) (contextual evaluation of jury instructions required)
Bailey v. Georgetown County, 94 F.3d 152 (4th Cir.1996) (holistic review of jury instructions)
Teague v. Bakker, 35 F.3d 978 (4th Cir.1994) (district court discretion in charging)
Lighty, 616 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2010) (standard for reversing on proposed jury instructions)
Waterman v. Batton, 393 F.3d 471 (4th Cir.2005) (force justified at beginning may not justify later if justification eliminated)
Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc., 50 F.3d 1291 (4th Cir.1995) (discretion in form and content of jury instructions)
Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) (voir dire discretion of trial courts)
Gladhill v. General Motors Corp., 743 F.2d 1049 (4th Cir.1984) (use of demonstrative evidence as a training example)
Brockington v. Boykins, 637 F.3d 503 (4th Cir.2011) (sequence of events may be analyzed as such in excessive-force cases)