Allen v. United States
164 U.S. 492 (1896)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court may provide a supplemental instruction to a deadlocked jury that urges jurors to re-examine their views in a spirit of candor and deference to the opinions of others, so long as the instruction does not coerce any juror into surrendering their conscientiously held beliefs.
Facts:
- Alexander Allen, armed with a pistol, approached Philip Henson in a wheat field.
- Allen passed through a wire fence and called out to Henson.
- Allen then struck Henson in the mouth with his left fist while simultaneously attempting to fire his pistol.
- Henson grabbed the pistol, causing the first shot to fire into the ground.
- Allen then managed to fire the pistol again, striking Henson in the side.
- Allen fired a final shot, striking Henson in the back and killing him.
Procedural Posture:
- Alexander Allen, the plaintiff in error, was tried for murder in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas and was convicted in 1893.
- Allen appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court set aside the conviction.
- Allen was retried in the same court in 1894 and was again convicted.
- Allen appealed again, and the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the second conviction.
- Allen was tried for a third time in the same trial court and was convicted.
- Allen sued out a writ of error to the U.S. Supreme Court, making him the plaintiff in error and the United States the defendant in error, for review of the third conviction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a supplemental jury instruction that urges minority jurors on a deadlocked panel to reconsider their position in light of the majority's view, while reminding all jurors not to abandon their own convictions, improperly coerce the jury and violate the defendant's right to a fair trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brown
No. A supplemental jury instruction does not improperly coerce a deadlocked jury if it encourages jurors to reconsider their views through mutual deliberation and deference, while reminding each juror not to surrender their own conscientiously held beliefs. The very object of the jury system is to secure unanimity through a comparison of views and arguments among the jurors. It is therefore permissible for a court to instruct jurors to examine the issues with candor, listen to each other's arguments with a disposition to be convinced, and for minority jurors to question whether their own judgment is reasonable when a majority of equally honest and intelligent jurors have reached a different conclusion. The charge did not require jurors to yield their convictions, but merely to engage in open-minded deliberation, which is not an error. The court also found no error in the trial court's instructions regarding malice aforethought, the duty to retreat in self-defense, and the consideration of a defendant's flight as evidence tending to show guilt.
Analysis:
This decision established the legitimacy of what became known as the 'Allen charge' or 'dynamite charge,' a supplemental instruction given to deadlocked juries to encourage a verdict. The ruling gives trial judges a powerful tool to prevent mistrials due to hung juries, promoting judicial efficiency. However, the Allen charge has since faced significant criticism and limitations in many jurisdictions, as it can be perceived as placing undue pressure on minority jurors to acquiesce to the majority, potentially undermining the requirement of a truly unanimous verdict based on individual conviction.
Unlock the full brief for Allen v. United States