Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that, inter alia, approved the use of a jury instruction intended to prevent a hung jury

Hung jury

A hung jury or deadlocked jury is a jury that cannot, by the required voting threshold, agree upon a verdict after an extended period of deliberation and is unable to change its votes due to severe differences of opinion.- England and Wales :...

 by encouraging jurors in the minority to reconsider. The Court thus affirmed Allen's conviction, after having vacated Allen's two prior convictions for the same crime.

Such an instruction became known as an Allen charge. An Allen charge is given when, after deliberation, a jury reports that it is deadlocked and unable to decide on a verdict. Because it is used to dislodge jurors from entrenched positions, the Allen charge is sometimes referred to as the "dynamite charge" or "hammer charge."

Allens holding is based upon the Supreme Court's supervisory power over the federal courts; thus, it is not binding on state courts. Approximately half of the U.S. state

U.S. state

A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of...

s prohibit Allen charges on state law grounds.

Prior history

Allen's three trials had been presided over by Judge Isaac Parker

Isaac Parker

Isaac Charles Parker served as a U.S. District Judge presiding over the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas for 21 years and also one-time politician. He served in that capacity during the most dangerous time for law enforcement during the western expansion...

 of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas

United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas

The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas is a United States District Court whose jurisdiction comprises the following counties: Ashley, Baxter, Benton, Boone, Bradley, Calhoun, Carroll, Clarke, Columbia, Crawford, Franklin, Garland, Hempstead, Hot Springs, Howard,...

.

Opinion

The relevant portion of Allen held:

The seventeenth and eighteenth assignments were taken to instructions given to the jury after the main charge was delivered, and when the jury had returned to the court, apparently for further instructions. These instructions were quite lengthy, and were, in substance, that in a large proportion of cases absolute certainty could not be expected; that, although the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of his fellows, yet they should examine the question submitted with candor, and with a proper regard and deference to the opinions of each other; that it was their duty to decide the case if they could conscientiously do so; that they should listen, with a disposition to be convinced, to each other's arguments; that, if much the larger number were for conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether his doubt was a reasonable one which made no impression upon the minds of so many men, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself. If, unon the other hand, the majority were for acquittal, the minority ought to ask themselves whether they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment which was not concurred in by the majority. These instructions were taken literally from a charge in a criminal case which was approved of by the supreme court of Massachusetts and by the supreme court of Connecticut.

While, undoubtedly, the verdict of the jury should represent the opinion of each individual juror, it by no means follows that opinions may not be changed by conference in the jury room. The very object of the jury system is to secure unanimity by a comparison of views, and by arguments among the jurors themselves. It certainly cannot be the law that each juror shoud not listen with deference to the arguments, and with a distrust of his own judgment, if he finds a large majority of the jury taking a different view of the case from what he does himself. It cannot be that each juror should go to the jury room with a blind determination that the verdict shall represent his opinion of the case at that moment, or that he should close his ears to the arguments of men who are equally honest and intelligent as himself. There was no error in these instructions.

Text of Allen charge

Text of the Allen charge as approved for use in the United States district court

United States district court

The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States...

s of the Fifth Circuit:

In state courts

Allen charges have been rejected, in whole or in part, by at least twenty-three states. Twenty-two states have rejected the charge by judicial decision: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Additionally, Kentucky has eliminated the Allen charge through its rules of criminal procedure.

Similar terms

• Papadopoulos direction (New Zealand law), R v Papadopoulos (1997); 1 NZLR 621 (CA)
• Black direction (Australian law), Black v The Queen (1993); 179 CLR
  Commonwealth Law Reports
  The Commonwealth Law Reports are the authorised reports of decisions of the High Court of Australia. The CLR are published by the Lawbook Company, a division of Thomson Reuters...
  
  44

Further reading

• Mark M. Lanier & Cloud Miller III, The Allen Charge: Expedient Justice or Coercion?, 25 Am. J. Crim. Justice 31 (2000).