Opinion ID: 2198259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prejudice and a Defendant's Absence from an Allen Charge

Text: The next question is whether Bradshaw was prejudiced by the violation of his Rule 43 right to be present. It is important to note that Bradshaw was absent for two conceptually distinct stages of his trial. The first was the decision whether to give the jury the Allen instruction. The second was the actual reading of the Allen instruction to the jury when the defendant was not present. Each stage involves a separate prejudice analysis. Before a discussion of the former, it is instructive to consider the Allen charge itself. This is a request from a trial court to the jury to attempt to come to a decision in the case without abandoning any firmly held beliefs. [46] This charge is often helpful in persuading the jury to come to a unanimous verdict, and is sometimes controversial. [47] Delaware follows the majority rule in permitting trial courts to give Allen charges. [48] It is hard to believe that Bradshaw's presence, as distinct from that of his counsel, would have influenced the wording of Allen charges. That is indeed a question of law. [49] In the circumstances of this case, however, there was a significant possibility that the trial judge might have refused to give the instruction altogether in the face of a reasoned objection by the defendant. The trial judge apparently doubted that an Allen charge would do any good. Furthermore, even after the State had expressed a desire to give one, the trial judge asked Bradshaw's counsel whether there was any request for one, and Bradshaw's counsel eventually made that request. Also, when the trial judge asked the jurors whether further deliberations would be helpful, none answered that they would. If Bradshaw's counsel had argued that this was an unambiguous indication that the jury was hopelessly deadlocked, it is also possible that the trial judge would have accepted that argument. Had the jury continued to be deadlocked and a mistrial declared, a new trial could well have produced a different outcome. It is at least possible, given the victim's credibility issues and Bradshaw's testimony, that a jury in any new trial would have concluded that there was reasonable doubt of Bradshaw's guilt and acquitted him. This decision is one on which a defendant's input would be helpful to his counsel. [50] From a defendant's perspective, whether to give an Allen charge is a basic, fundamental choice between a verdict on this trial or a new trial. A defendant may well be in as good a position as his lawyer to know whether his case might go better at a second trial. He would know how likely it is that he might discover additional evidence. He might have input into how he and all the witnesses came across to the jury, in a common sense manner as distinct from a legal one. Bradshaw was prejudiced in not having the chance to consult with his counsel on those considerations. There is a second and independent reason why Bradshaw was prejudiced. Bradshaw was not present when the trial judge read the Allen charge to the jury. After deliberating for more than a day on Bradshaw's fate, the jury re-entered the courtroom only to see Bradshaw's chair empty. Instead of observing a view of his sad plight at this critical phase in their deliberations, [51] the jurors might have concluded that Bradshaw did not care enough about the outcome of his case to be present, or that he thought the result to be a foregone conclusion because he was guilty, or both. This also might have influenced their decision to find him guilty on two of the three charges. Accordingly, we conclude that his absence at this stage was inherently prejudicial.