Court Opinion

ID: 9536076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:54:22.771076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:26.817014
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice McINTYRE,
with whom Mr. Justice McEWAN joins, concurring.
The most serious question presented in this appeal is whether the giving of the so-called Allen instruction was reversible error.
In view of the failure of the United States Supreme Court to declare the Allen charge unconstitutional or prejudicial per se, and in view of the fact that other courts have generally declined to reverse convictions where such a charge has been given, we feel we must concur in the result arrived at by our colleagues.
We do think it should be pointed out, however, as stated by Judge Mur rah in Benscoter v. United States, 10 Cir., 376 F.2d 49, 50, that the language of the Allen charge approaches the ultimate permissible limits of a judge’s prerogative to guide and direct a jury toward a righteous verdict.
Also, as done in United States v. Brown, 7 Cir., 411 F.2d 930, 933-934, we think trial judges should be directed that henceforth, if a charge is given to a deadlocked jury, it should be consistent with the standards suggested by the American Bar Association. Such standards are delineated in the Brown opinion, and it is not necessary for them to be repeated.