Legal Definitions - dynamite instruction

A dynamite instruction, also commonly known as an Allen Charge, is a supplemental instruction that a judge may give to a jury that has reported it is unable to reach a unanimous verdict. This instruction encourages jurors to re-examine their own views and consider the opinions of their fellow jurors in an effort to break a deadlock and arrive at a verdict. The instruction emphasizes the importance of reaching a decision, if possible, without any juror surrendering their honest convictions solely for the purpose of achieving unanimity. The primary goal is to avoid a hung jury, which would necessitate a costly and time-consuming retrial, but it must be delivered carefully to avoid coercing jurors into changing their minds against their genuine beliefs.

• Example 1: Civil Contract Dispute

  In a civil trial concerning a breach of contract, the jury has deliberated for two full days and sends a note to the judge stating they are "hopelessly deadlocked" with six jurors leaning towards finding for the plaintiff and six for the defendant. Rather than immediately declaring a mistrial, the judge might issue a dynamite instruction. This instruction would remind the jurors of the significant time and resources invested in the trial, encourage them to listen to each other's arguments with an open mind, and thoughtfully reconsider their positions without abandoning their sincerely held beliefs. The aim is to prompt further discussion and potentially a resolution, thereby avoiding the expense and delay of a new trial for both parties.

• Example 2: Criminal Assault Case

  During a criminal trial for aggravated assault, the jury has been deliberating for an entire day. They inform the judge that they are split 10-2, with two jurors holding out for acquittal, and they do not believe further discussion will change anything. The judge could then give a dynamite instruction. This instruction would emphasize to the jurors the importance of reaching a just verdict if possible, and the need for each juror to thoughtfully re-evaluate the evidence and arguments, including those of the minority. The instruction would carefully balance the encouragement to deliberate further with a clear warning against any juror feeling pressured to compromise their individual conscience or honest assessment of the evidence.

• Example 3: Complex Corporate Fraud Trial

  A jury in a complex corporate fraud case, involving numerous documents, intricate financial data, and expert testimonies, has deliberated for over a week. They send a note indicating they are struggling to find common ground and are making no progress towards a unanimous verdict. Faced with a potentially hung jury after such a lengthy and resource-intensive trial, the judge might deliver a dynamite instruction. This instruction would specifically urge the jurors to review the evidence carefully once more, consider the different perspectives presented during deliberations, and make a renewed effort to reach a consensus. The judge would be careful to phrase the instruction in a way that encourages productive discussion and compromise where appropriate, but strictly prohibits any juror from feeling compelled to agree with the majority if it means abandoning their honest assessment of the facts and the law.