Radiolab Presents: More Perfect – "Mr. Graham and the Reasonable Man"
Original Air Date: November 30, 2017
Hosts/Producers: Matt Kielty (Radiolab), Kelly Prime, Lulu Miller, Latif Nasser

Episode Overview

This compelling episode dives deep into the landmark Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor (1989), a decision that transformed the standard for assessing police use of force in America. Through archival tape, personal interviews, and lucid storytelling, Radiolab traces the real-life origins of the case — a diabetic man’s search for orange juice — and investigates how the court’s ruling established the so-called “reasonable officer” standard. The episode examines how this objective-sounding doctrine was meant to reform police accountability, how it has been interpreted in practice, and why it so often shields law enforcement from consequence, even in the wake of high-profile police killings.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Incident That Sparked Graham v. Connor

• [07:27]
  • Dethorne Graham, a Black man, suffers an insulin reaction and rushes to a convenience store for juice. After quickly leaving (bypassing a long line), police witness his hurried exit and pursue him.
  • Graham is stopped, handcuffed, injured, and denied explanation about his medical emergency—even as bystanders and his wife attempt to clarify.
  • Officers learn no crime occurred; Graham is nonetheless returned home, still in cuffs, and left injured.

Notable quote:

“At one point, one of the officers grabs Dethorne by the handcuffs and picks him up off the curb from behind…eventually, the officers pick him up, one on each arm, one on each leg, and just throw him into the back of a squad car.” — Matt Kielty [12:40]

2. Legal Journey and the Malicious Intent Standard

• [15:49]
  • Graham’s attorney, Woody Knitt, sues the police for excessive force. At that time, to win, the plaintiff had to prove the officer acted with "malicious intent."
  • This “malice” requirement was nearly impossible to meet and rooted in interpretations of the 14th and 8th Amendments.

Notable quote:

“We had to show that the police officers had acted maliciously for the purpose of causing harm…that seems like a really hard thing to prove.” — Matt Kielty and co-host [19:50]

3. The Shift to the “Reasonable Officer” Standard

• [31:10]
  • Civil rights lawyer Jerry Beaver joins the team and helps bring the case to the Supreme Court, pushing for an objective standard based on the 4th Amendment: “unreasonable search and seizure.”
  • Legal history and the emergence of the “reasonable person” concept in law, tracing back to Adolphe Quetelet’s “average man” and English tort law.

Notable quote:

“What Woody and Jerry were essentially trying to do is to say we need to use the fourth amendment…and this idea of unreasonable search and seizure to create a reasonable officer.” — Matt Kielty [44:12]

• The Supreme Court rules unanimously in 1989 that claims of excessive force must be judged under the "reasonableness" standard of the 4th Amendment, not by determining officers’ intent.

Notable legal passage:

“Claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force…are most properly characterized as invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizures…” — Reading of Chief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion [53:40]

• On retrial, Graham still loses; the jury decides the officers acted as a reasonable officer might in that scenario.

4. Real-World Impact: How the Standard Functions Now

• [01:01:20]
  • The “reasonable officer” doctrine is invoked repeatedly whenever Black Americans are killed by police—Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, and many others.
  • In almost every recent, high-profile case, juries conclude the officer’s actions were “reasonable” when evaluated at the specific moment force was used.
• Statistical note: Black Americans are ~7 times more likely than whites to be killed by police (adjusted for population), yet most officers are never charged.

Notable quote:

"In almost every one of those cases, Graham vs. Connor…the decision that many felt was supposed to deliver justice for victims…it prevented the victims from getting relief and instead protected the cops.” — Matt Kielty [01:05:44]

5. How Police Are Trained on Graham v. Connor

• [01:10:30]
  • Reporter Kelly McEvers attends a “Street Survival” police training seminar, learning how Graham v. Connor is taught as a shield for split-second deadly force decisions.
  • Instructors narrow jurors’ attention to the “superseding event”—the specific moment the officer used force—erasing consideration of the lead-up to violence.

Notable quotes:

“Forget what happened before. Forget that the officers rolled right up on Centeno. Forget that they weren’t giving him much time or space. It’s this moment right here…that is the only moment that matters.” — Trainer Jim Glennon [01:19:05]

6. Real-Life Case Study: Jonathan Ferrell

• [01:23:50 - 01:35:40]
  • Ferrell, an unarmed Black man seeking help after a car wreck, is killed by Charlotte police in a case eerily similar to Graham’s. Dash cam and 911 tape show communication breakdowns and a sequence of rapid, fatal decision-making.
  • Jury split: most white jurors see the officer’s fear as reasonable; most jurors of color do not. Result: mistrial.

Notable quote:

“Just what did he do to deserve to be shot so many times?” — Moses Wilson, Black juror [01:32:07]

7. Debate: Can the Standard Be Fixed?

• [01:39:30]
  • Some advocates argue for a “strict liability” approach: If an officer wrongly shoots someone who is unarmed, it should always be a crime, regardless of subjective fear.
  • Others point to residual ambiguity in Rehnquist’s opinion concerning the “totality of the circumstances.” Lower courts now split: Some limit analysis to the split-second; others urge juries to consider events leading up to the use of force (escalation, alternatives, officer conduct).

Notable quote:

“I would suggest…that the cops have to be right, in fact. If you shoot me because you think I have a gun, I had best have a gun…and if I don’t have a gun, your ass is going to jail.” — Elie Mystal [01:40:40]

Memorable Moments and Notable Quotes

• On how the law shifted after the Supreme Court ruling:

  “We no longer had to show that the officers acted maliciously…you just look at the case from the facts of the case, and you say, would a reasonable officer do the same thing or not?” — Matt Kielty [56:12]

• On the superseding moment:

  “The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” — Judicial instruction / Kelly Prime [01:07:10]

• On police training:

  “The whole concept of what is reasonable shifts…and the only real question you can ask…is did the officer feel threatened? Was the fear that officer had a reasonable fear in that moment?” — Matt Kielty [01:21:35]

• Personal reflection from Dethorne Graham Jr.:

  “When someone who has authority just…does something like that to you, it strikes at your core…you lose a part of yourself that you can’t get back.” — Dethorne Graham Jr. [01:04:30]

Important Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment | Highlights | |-----------|----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------| | 07:27 | Dethorne Graham’s diabetic episode | Details of the Charlotte incident | | 15:49 | Filing the lawsuit; “malicious intent” era | Legal standards before Graham v. Connor | | 31:10 | Move to Supreme Court – legal arguments | The “average man;” origins of reasonableness | | 53:40 | Supreme Court Decision | Reading of Rehnquist’s majority opinion | | 56:12 | “New era” for police accountability? | The promise vs. reality of the ruling | | 01:01:20 | Modern impact; cases from Ferguson to now | How “reasonable officer” is applied today | | 01:10:30 | Police training on “Graham” | Inside a “Street Survival” seminar | | 01:23:50 | Jonathan Ferrell case study | Application of the standard, jury split | | 01:39:30 | Rethinking the standard | Alternatives, debates about “totality” | | 01:44:00 | Closing reflections with Dethorne Graham Jr. | Living in the aftermath |

Thematic Conclusions

• Graham v. Connor was intended as a step toward greater police accountability via an "objective" standard.
• In practice, the focus on split-second decision-making, from a cop’s point of view, has protected officers and failed to deliver the justice many hoped for.
• Lower courts are now fighting over whether “totality of circumstances” ought to mean a broader view—including the events and decisions leading to violence.
• The episode closes with reflections on the enduring psychological toll on families, the ongoing risks for Black Americans, and the unresolved question of what real accountability in policing would look like.

Additional Noteworthy Quotes

• "This is an old trick from defense attorneys…This case is not about race. This case is about choices." — Moses Wilson, juror [01:33:01]
• "From the moment it was created, [the reasonable officer standard] was actually kind of, it was constrained in a few very important ways." — Matt Kielty [01:06:15]

This episode is a powerful examination of how legal doctrines, rooted in claims of objectivity and reasonableness, have shaped—and continue to shape—the lived experience of police encounters in America, and how law on the books can diverge dramatically from law in action.