Opinion ID: 161852
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Incorporation of the Allen Charge with Other Jury Instructions

Text: 54 In order to temper the potential coercive effect of an Allen charge, this court has recommended that the instruction be incorporated with the other jury instructions in other words, that it be given as part of the original jury instructions. See Smith, 857 F.2d at 684 (The Tenth Circuit law permits the Allen charge in toto to be given, though with caution, and preferably . . . before the jury has reached an impasse or deadlock.); Potter, 691 F.2d at 1277 (We have cautioned that the Allen instruction is preferred as part of the regular jury instruction before deadlock has occurred.). In this position, the Allen instruction is less likely to be coercive because (1) it does not stand out or receive particular emphasis and (2) it is given before the jury has reached a deadlock. 55 In Mr. McElhiney's case, the Allen charge at issue was not incorporated with the other jury instructions, having been issued as a supplemental charge after the jury reached an impasse. Consequently, the possibility of coercion becomes more likely. We hasten to note that this positioning of the instruction does not by itself establish coercion. See United States v. McKinney, 822 F.2d 946, 951 (10th Cir. 1987) ([A]lthough it is a preferred rule of procedure that an Allen instruction be given the jury at the same time as other instructions, it is not a per se rule.). But when this positioning is taken in conjunction with the flawed language of the instruction, as discussed below, we conclude that there was impermissible coercion.