Legal Definitions - Allen charge

An Allen charge is a special instruction that a judge gives to a jury that has reported it is unable to reach a unanimous verdict, meaning they are "hung" or "deadlocked." The primary purpose of an Allen charge is to encourage jurors to continue deliberating and to make a renewed effort to reach a verdict, if they can do so without sacrificing their individual honest beliefs.

This instruction reminds jurors of their duty to discuss the evidence with one another, to listen to differing viewpoints, and to reconsider their own opinions. However, it also emphasizes that no juror should change their mind simply to agree with the majority or for the sole purpose of reaching a verdict if it goes against their conscience or their assessment of the evidence.

Named after the 1896 Supreme Court case Allen v. United States, these charges are sometimes controversially referred to as "dynamite" or "shotgun" charges because critics argue they can put undue pressure on minority jurors to conform to the majority opinion. While federal courts may use Allen charges, many state courts have either modified them significantly or prohibited them entirely due to these concerns.

• A Protracted Federal Criminal Trial: In a complex federal fraud trial, the jury has been deliberating for four days and sends a note to the judge stating they are hopelessly deadlocked, with a few jurors holding out against the majority on a key element of the crime. Rather than immediately declaring a mistrial, the judge might issue an Allen charge. The judge would remind the jurors of their duty to carefully consider all evidence, to listen respectfully to each other's arguments, and to re-examine their own positions without abandoning their sincerely held convictions, encouraging them to try once more to reach a unanimous decision.

  This illustrates an Allen charge because the judge is providing a supplemental instruction to a deadlocked jury in a federal court, urging them to continue their deliberations and strive for a verdict, rather than giving up.

• Civil Case Disagreement on Damages: A jury in a state court personal injury case has agreed that the defendant is liable but is deeply divided on the amount of monetary damages to award the plaintiff. After several hours of intense discussion, they inform the judge they cannot agree on a figure. If the state's rules permit (or if it's a federal case), the judge might give an Allen charge. This instruction would encourage them to revisit the evidence related to damages, consider the perspectives of their fellow jurors, and attempt to find a common ground for a fair compensation amount, without compromising their individual assessment of what is just.

  This demonstrates an Allen charge being used to encourage a jury, stuck on a specific aspect of a civil case (damages), to continue deliberating and find a resolution, highlighting its application beyond just guilt or innocence in criminal cases.

• Federal Drug Trafficking Case: A jury in a federal court is deliberating a drug trafficking case. After two days, they send a note indicating a 10-2 split and that further discussion seems fruitless. The judge, recognizing the significant resources already invested in the trial and the importance of a resolution, decides to give an Allen charge. The instruction would emphasize the importance of each juror forming their own judgment, but also the duty to consider the opinions of others and to re-evaluate their own views in light of those discussions, urging them to return to the jury room and make one last good-faith effort to reach a verdict.

  This example shows the Allen charge being applied in a federal criminal context, where the judge uses the instruction to prompt a deadlocked jury to re-engage in deliberation, hoping to avoid a mistrial and reach a definitive outcome.