 allen v. united states, , was a united states supreme court case that, amongst other things, approved the use of a jury instruction intended to prevent a hung jury by encouraging jurors in the minority to reconsider. the court affirmed allen's murder conviction, after having vacated his two prior convictions for the same crime.allen v. united states, 157 u.s. 675 (1895); allen v. united states, 150 u.s. 551 (1893). such an instruction became known as an allen charge' and is given when, after deliberation, a jury reports that it is deadlocked and unable to decide on a verdict. because it is used to dislodge jurors from entrenched positions, the allen charge is sometimes referred to as the "dynamite charge" or "hammer charge." allens holding is based upon the supreme court's supervisory power over the federal courts. thus, it is not binding on state courts. approximately half of the u.s. states prohibit allen charges on state law grounds.see, e.g., early v. packer, 537 u.s. 3 (2002) (noting california's rejection of allen). == background == allen's three trials had been presided over by judge isaac parker of the united states district court for the western district of arkansas. == opinion == the relevant portion of allen held: :the seventeenth and eighteenth assignments were taken to instructions given to the jury after the main charge was delivered, and when the jury had returned to the court, apparently for further instructions. these instructions were quite lengthy, and were, in substance, that in a large proportion of cases absolute certainty could not be expected; that, although the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of his fellows, yet they should examine the question submitted with candor, and with a proper regard and deference to the opinions of each other; that it was their duty to decide the case if they could conscientiously do so; that they 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 were for acquittal, the minority 
1896_in_United_States_case_law United_States_Supreme_Court_cases