Opinion ID: 1436943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Results in Decisions Disapproving Allen Charge.

Text: Among recent cases there has also been considerable variation in the disposition of cases in which the courts have disapproved the giving of Allen charge or variations. Where a finding of error has been based upon the conclusion that such an instruction was coercive, after considering the particular terms of the supplemental instruction given to a deadlocked jury or upon the circumstances under which it was given, the usual result has been simply to remand the case for a new trial. [35] Where such a decision has been based upon the supervisory power of the appellate court, some courts have expressly stated that such a holding is not retroactive, but is to be solely prospective in its operation. [36] Courts have, however, both disapproved the future use of the Allen charge under their supervisory power as appellate courts and, at the same time, have affirmed the conviction of the defendant in the case in which it made such a decision. [37] Courts which have disapproved of the Allen charge have also been faced with the question whether to disapprove all such supplemental instructions to deadlocked juries or whether to approve some other and different instruction for use in such cases. Three courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and for the Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court of Alaska, [38] have approved as a substitute, an instruction prepared and proposed by the American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice. [39] An almost identical instruction was approved for future use by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, although not stated to be the ABA approved instruction. [40] It has been contended, however, that no supplemental instructions should be approved for use as a means of encouraging deadlocked jurors to make further attempts to agree upon verdicts. Thus, it is contended that any such instruction is inherently coercive and that the saving of court time is not worth such a rule, considering the small number of hung juries and the likelihood that most failures to reach a verdict stem from genuine and reasonable differences over the facts. [41]