Hello, my
fellow legal eagles, my readers-in-law, my courtroom junkies. This is my final blog post of the semester. Like the lyrics in the famous Boyz II Men
song, “It’s So Hard to Say Goodbye to Yesterday”:
"How do I say goodbye
to what we had?
The good times that
made us laugh, outweighed the bad.
. . .
I don’t know where
this road is gonna lead to.
All I know is where
we’ve been and what we’ve been through."
Hopefully, if you read my previous three posts you were entertained
and enlightened. If you did not read
any of my previous posts, please do so. You
may access them by clicking the links at the end of this post. Before I bid you adieu, let’s begin with
today’s topic: How Explosive Allen Charges Shape Jury Deliberations.
In 1896, the
Supreme Court approved the use of a jury instruction that encouraged jurors who
had been hesitant to render a verdict in a murder trial to continue
deliberating until they could reach a verdict.
In part, the instruction stated that each juror:
"should listen, with a disposition to be
convinced, to each other's arguments; that, if much
the larger number were for conviction, a dissenting juror should consider
whether his doubt was a reasonable
one which made no impression upon the minds of so many men, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself. If, upon the other hand, the majority was for acquittal, the minority ought
to ask themselves whether they might not reasonably
doubt the correctness of a judgement which was not concurred in by the majority." Allen v.
United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501 (1896).
This type
of instruction, known as an Allen
instruction or a “dynamite” charge,[1]
is typically issued when jurors inform the court that the jury is deadlocked. After the court is so informed, it may agree
with the jury’s decision or disagree and instruct jurors to continue their
deliberations. The purpose of delivering
the instruction is to encourage the jury to, if possible, transform its deadlock
into a unanimous or majority verdict in order to avoid a mistrial.[2]
Critics of
the dynamite charge argue that its explosive
effect injures the justice system by coercing jurors to reach decisions different
from the decisions they would have reached if not urged by the court to
continue their deliberations.[3]
- A 2001 study analyzed 539 criminal cases that had been appealed between 1964 and 1999 involving Allen charges.[4] Researchers concluded that in some instances the charges appeared to have coerced jurors “and, therefore, violated the constitutional guarantees to a trial by an impartial jury and that defendants are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”[5]
Supporters
of the Allen instruction argue that each
juror has a moral obligation to avoid deadlocking the jury; the instruction simply
reminds them of that obligation. After
further deliberation, if a deadlock is unavoidable, the jury will
return its then appropriate decision to the court.
- A 2019 civil case ended in a mistrial after “jurors declared their impasse irresolvable.” The court issued an Allen instruction after the jury had initially told the court that it was deadlocked. The jury’s final declaration came about an hour after the court had instructed jurors to continue deliberating.
Despite their disagreement, perhaps what critics and supporters
of Allen charges agree upon is that the instruction “gets the system moving.” What do you think?
I am
currently completing a short paper (approximately 20 or so pages) that briefly discusses
the use of Allen charges in civil and
criminal cases in the Fifth Circuit, with a few references to Texas state
courts. The paper will include some empirical
studies that have examined the effects of Allen
charges. If you would like a copy of
the final draft, send me a LinkedIn
message.
As promised, here are links to my previous blog posts:
Have a great 2019, and regardless of which side of the "v" you're advocating for, keep fighting the good fight, y'all!
-Aaron L. Diggins
[1]
As explained by one legal scholar, “[T]he use of the term “dynamite” is that,
like dynamite, the Allen charge ought
to be used with care because of its explosive effects on a deadlocked
jury.” Richard P. Smith, Instructing Deadlocked Juries: Use of Second
Allen Charge Not Error Per Se (United States v. Robinson), 52 St. John’s. L. Rev. 285 (1990). The Texas Supreme Court described the name as
illustrative of its effect to “‘blast’ a jury from deadlock to verdict.” Stevens
v. Travelers Ins. Co., 563 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1978).
[2]
See Saul M.
Kassin et al., The Dynamite Charge:
Effects on the Perceptions and Deliberation Behavior of Mock Jurors, 14 L.
& Hum. Behav. 537, 538 (1990).
[4]
Roy C. Manning, Jr., et al., Encouraging Equitable Verdicts? The Impact of the
Allen Charge on Jury Trial Outcomes, 5 J. OF PUB. AFF. 7, 9 (2001).
[5]
Id. at 15.
