The jury reported they were hopelessly deadlocked in the Melton case, and the judge gave them what lawyers call an Allen or dynamite charge. The instruction is named after Allen v. United States, an 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case.
It probably went something like this (an instruction from U.S. v. Nguyen, 28 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 1994)):
“Members of the jury, I received your note. I’m going to ask that you continue your deliberations in an effort to agree upon a verdict and dispose of this case. And I have a few additional comments I would like for you to consider as you do so. This is an important case. The trial has been expensive in time, effort and money to both the defense and the prosecution. If you should fail to agree on a verdict, the case is left open and it must be tried again. Obviously, another trial would only serve to increase the cost to both sides. There is no reason to believe that the case can be tried again by either side better or more exhaustively than it was tried before you. Any future jury must be selected in the same manner and from the same source as you were chosen. There is no reason to believe that the case could ever be submitted to 12 men and women more conscientious, more impartial or more competent to decide it or that more or clearer evidence could be produced.
“If a substantial majority of your number are for a conviction, each dissenting juror ought to consider whether a doubt in his own mind is a reasonable one since it appears to make no effective impression upon the minds of the others. On the other hand, if a majority or even a lesser number of you are for acquittal, the other jurors ought seriously to ask themselves again most thoughtfully whether they do not have a reason to doubt the correctness of the judgment which is not shared by several of their fellow jurors and whether they should distrust the weight and sufficiency of evidence which fails to convince several of their fellow jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Remember at all times that no juror is expected to yield a conscientious conviction he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence. But remember also, after full deliberation and consideration of the evidence in the case, it is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so without surrendering your conscientious convictions. You must also remember that if the evidence in the case fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused should have a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
“You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and should take all the time that you may feel is necessary. I will ask now that you retire once again to continue your deliberations with these additional comments in mind to be applied, of course, in conjunction with all instructions I have previously given to you. I remind you again that you have to read all the instructions that I have previously given you and this instruction all together. You’re not to single out any one. And I would also remind you that I specifically directed that you wouldn’t reveal your division-numerical division if there is one at any time, not even to the Court.”
How often does the charge produce a verdict from a hung jury? (If I’m wording that correctly)
this is a vital point that the Clarion Ledger neglected to report a few minutes ago.
ccvz, it depends on how determined the Judge is and how long he is willing to keep them in the jury room.
i’ve had a few cases when the instruction is given [in MS state court its referred to as a "Sharplin" instruction] and based upon that anecdotal evidence, it works more often than not to get a verdict one way or the other.
I have had them read to criminal and civil (modified Allen Charge) juries. In the criminal cases they stayed hung in the civil they returned with a favorable verdict for my client (the plaintiff).
Of course this example is purely anecdotal.
A hung jury was always a very likely outcome, which itself calls into question the feds’ wisdom in bringing this case.
I should just be happy that Miss. is so free of federal crimes that Dunn Lampton’s office had the leisure to prosecute this one.
(I’d be happy to see Melton gone, but I can’t pretend this was a terribly worthwhile case … and I’m afraid the jury won’t pretend that, either.)
Anderson @ 4: Win!
This has been my take, a crock of sh#t has been brought to the Courthouse, taken up money and time, and has insulted most people’s intelligence. So glad I don’t have to live anywhere near Jackson or have to associate with anyone in this hell’va mess of a mess.
Allen charges are despicable.
that’s close to my view, confounded.
Confounded @ 7: Win!
Objected like hell every time!
despicable to the defendant; bet the other side sees it differently!
Anderson: Lampton took no part in this. this is the DOJ out of D.C.’s party.
Looks to me like the Judge said the same thing both ways. Objectively, how does Judge Jordan’s Allen charge favor the prosecution?
barfly, the Allen charge favors the prosecution if a guilty verdict is the result. Defendant argues that the charge unfairly forced someone who was holding out for innocence to cave, resulting in a conviction. The system pre-qualifies jurors to be committed and willing to find a defendant guilty, tells them it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt, then if they find that doubt and hang up the process out comes the dynamite.
Defendants have to object to the charge. If it results in defense verdict obviously no harm no foul. But a hung jury is still quite a victory, particularly when the feds are after you. So defendants generally don’t want an Allen charge.
Melton’s guilty as sin but the holdout jurors here are attempting to nullify the prosecution. Which is something jurors can (and do) do from time to time. Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad.
An Allen charge focuses the jurors on not being hold-outs– and totally undermines arguments asking the jurors to each stand on their individual consciences.
Anybody know of a criminal case where an Allen charge resulted in an acquittal? Ever example I know at first or second hand resulted in conviction.
The judge just called everyone back into court
Anybody know of a criminal case where an Allen charge resulted in an acquittal?
We may get an example. I don’t see a stubborn juror caring much what that whippersnapper judge says.
nmc @ 13: bingo.
I’ve started a new post about the JFP twitter feed of what is happening in the courtroom. I think the questions suggest things are tilting away from the mayor…