Opinion ID: 1436943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Future Use of Allen Charge or Dynamite Charge Disapproved.

Text: We agree with the statements that few would maintain that the trial judge should be required immediately to accept a jury's first indication of failure to agree without a fair attempt at encouraging agreement and that it is only the method used to induce a verdict that is questionable. [49] We also agree, however, that the line between proper guidance and improper coercion is a fine line. [50] We are also concerned whether there is any proper standard or any coherent theory to apply in such cases other than to consider each case separately by looking at the particular terms of the instructions and the particular factual context and circumstances in each case. Indeed, it is because of the endless variations of such instructions, as well as in such factual circumstances, that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the courts to uniformly administer the giving of such instructions. [51] The problem also involves a balancing of such considerations as the need for economy in judicial administration by discouraging hung juries so as to eliminate the time and expense of retrials against the risk that defendants may be convicted as the result of improper coercion by the trial judge in the giving of a dynamite charge to a deadlocked jury. [52] In that connection, we are impressed with the apparently accurate statistics to the effect that of the small percentage of persons accused of crime who are actually tried before a jury, only a very small percentage are the subject of mistrials because of deadlocked juries. [53] We are convinced, however, that the Allen charge, even when modified and balanced, carries a substantial potential for coercion, even though it may not be possible to demonstrate such coercion in a given case. Indeed, the potential for coercion is greater for the honest and the conscientious juror than for the occasional stubborn and unreasonable juror. [54] Indeed, there is considerable merit to the contention that the majority of a jury is not always right and that the possibility of a hung jury based upon an honest difference in opinion, is part and parcel of our jury system. [55] For all of these reasons, we agree with the view that the giving of the Allen charge, even when modified and balanced, involves so many pitfalls and is such an invitation to error as to cause more trouble in the administration of justice than it is worth. [56] We thus agree with those courts which have disapproved the future use of such supplemental instructions to deadlocked juries in criminal cases. [57] In accord with the views as expressed in most of the recent cases on this subject, however, we also approve the supplemental instruction proposed by the ABA Project, insofar as it is applicable in a jurisdiction not requiring unanimous verdicts in all cases, for use in this state in the event that a trial court may, in its discretion, deem it advisable to give some supplemental instruction to a deadlocked jury. [58] We agree, however, with the view that the terms of that recommended instruction are not to be regarded as graven in stone. [59] Affirmed.