The Allen Charge is a supplemental instruction given by judges to deadlocked juries to encourage them to reach a verdict. It has been the subject of debate and controversy for decades, with some arguing that it coerces jurors into reaching a verdict they do not truly believe in, while others maintain that it is a necessary tool to prevent hung juries.
The Allen Charge, also known as the “dynamite charge,” was first introduced in 1896 by Judge Charles Allen in the case of State v. Allen. It typically includes the following elements:
- A reminder of the jurors’ duty to reach a verdict.
- An instruction to consider the views of other jurors.
- A warning that a failure to reach a verdict will result in a mistrial.
Critics of the Allen Charge argue that it:
- Coerces jurors: By emphasizing the importance of reaching a verdict and the potential consequences of a mistrial, the Allen Charge can create undue pressure on jurors to conform, even if they do not believe in the verdict.
- Undermines juror independence: The Allen Charge encourages jurors to prioritize reaching a verdict over individual conscience, potentially leading to verdicts that do not reflect the true beliefs of all jurors.
- Increases the risk of wrongful convictions: Critics argue that the Allen Charge can lead to jurors compromising their principles to avoid a mistrial, increasing the likelihood of convicting innocent defendants.
Supporters of the Allen Charge contend that it:
- Promotes deliberation and compromise: The Allen Charge encourages jurors to engage in further discussion and consider the perspectives of others, which can lead to more informed and well-reasoned verdicts.
- Prevents hung juries: By emphasizing the importance of reaching a verdict, the Allen Charge helps to break deadlocks and ensures that cases are resolved.
- Reflects the will of the majority: Supporters argue that the Allen Charge is a democratic tool that allows the views of the majority of jurors to prevail.
Empirical research on the Allen Charge has produced mixed results. Some studies have found that it can increase the likelihood of reaching a verdict, while others have suggested that it may lead to more juror coercion and wrongful convictions. One study found that the Allen Charge was used in 3.5% of all federal criminal trials and that it resulted in a verdict in 85% of those cases.
The Allen Charge remains a controversial tool in the criminal justice system. While it can help to prevent hung juries and promote deliberation, it also raises concerns about juror coercion and the potential for wrongful convictions. The decision of whether to use the Allen Charge is ultimately a complex one that must be made on a case-by-case basis by judges.
The debate over the Allen Charge highlights the tension between the importance of reaching a verdict and the need to ensure that verdicts are fair and just. As the criminal justice system continues to evolve, it is likely that this debate will continue for years to come.
