If the judge and trial attorneys are unable to be of further assistance after dialoguing with a jury at impasse, or if after those further proceedings the jurors are returned for additional deliberations, no further instructions should be given asking or encouraging them to reach a verdict, at least in criminal cases. If the trial judge follows the procedure recommended immediately above and opens a dialogue with the jury reported to be at an impasse, and, as a result, a deadlock is avoided and a verdict is returned, the need to instruct further is obviated. However, the circumstances may not permit court and counsel to be of such assistance, and it may become necessary to bring the jury back into the courtroom for further instructions. Reinstructing at this juncture is fraught with peril, given the Supreme Court's frequent disapproval of instructions which stress the importance of reaching a verdict by encouraging jurors to reconsider their positions and then return the jury to deliberate further, despite their prior announcement of having reached an impasse. Some instructions now in use appear to meet those criteria.
Some judges prefer to send a jury back for more deliberations without any instruction at all.
Whether or not further proceedings are had after dialoguing with the jury, and if the jury is asked to deliberate further, no further instructions should be given. If it is thought necessary to instruct a possibly deadlocked jury prior to returning them for additional deliberations, it must be done in a non-coercive manner that respects the views and independence of all jurors and in a way that does not suggest what the verdict should be. H for a sample instruction.