What Is an Allen Charge: The Instruction to a Deadlocked Jury

What an Allen Charge Is

An Allen charge is a supplemental instruction a judge may give to a jury that reports it is deadlocked, encouraging the jurors to keep deliberating in an effort to reach a verdict. It takes its name from the label long attached to this kind of instruction and is sometimes called a “dynamite charge” or an “anti-deadlock” instruction. The basic purpose is to nudge a stuck jury back toward the work of deciding the case rather than giving up.

The instruction typically arises during deliberation, a stage a guide on what is jury deliberation describes, after the jury has signaled it cannot agree. Rather than immediately accepting a deadlock, a judge may ask the jurors to continue. Whether such an instruction is permitted, and what it may say, varies considerably by jurisdiction.

Why It Exists

The rationale is practical. Trials take significant time and resources, and a deadlock that ends in a mistrial may mean the case has to be tried again, a result a guide on what is a hung jury describes. An instruction encouraging continued effort reflects a hope that a jury reporting an early impasse might still, with more discussion, reach a decision it can all accept.

Framed neutrally, the instruction usually reminds jurors of the value of deliberating to a verdict where they conscientiously can, while — in many formulations — also reminding them not to surrender an honestly held view simply to break a tie. That second half is meant to keep the encouragement from tipping into pressure, though how well it does so is exactly what the debate is about.

Why It Is Debated

The Allen charge is among the more contested instructions, and the concerns are taken seriously across the spectrum. The central worry is coercion: that telling a deadlocked jury to keep trying can put pressure on the jurors in the minority to abandon their honest views and go along with the majority, producing a verdict that reflects fatigue or pressure rather than genuine agreement.

Because of that concern, jurisdictions differ sharply in how they treat the instruction. A few recurring lines of difference appear:

• Whether it is allowed at all. Some systems permit a version of it; others restrict or disfavor it.
• What it may say. Approved wording in many systems is careful to avoid singling out minority jurors or implying they should yield.
• When it may be given. How early a judge may use it, and how many times, can be limited.
• How it is reviewed afterward. Whether a particular charge crossed into coercion is a question that can be raised later, under standards that vary.

Because these rules and the line between encouragement and coercion are defined by law and vary by jurisdiction, whether a given Allen charge was proper is a fact-and-law question tied to the specific wording and circumstances.

What It Does and Does Not Do

An Allen charge asks a jury to keep working; it does not require a verdict. A jury that genuinely cannot agree even after the instruction can still end in a deadlock. The charge is an encouragement to continue, not a command to decide, and many formulations are explicit that no juror should give up a conscientious view merely to reach unanimity.

It also does not change the standard the jury applies. The level of proof required for a conviction, a subject a guide on what is the burden of proof addresses, is unaffected by an instruction to keep deliberating. The Allen charge is about whether the jury keeps trying, not about lowering the bar for what a verdict requires.

How It Fits With Other Trial Concepts

The Allen charge sits within the deliberation phase. A guide on what is jury deliberation describes the process it interrupts, and a guide on what is a hung jury describes the deadlock outcome it tries to avoid. A guide on what is a jury instruction covers instructions generally, of which the Allen charge is a specialized, supplemental kind given in response to a reported impasse.

Understanding the Allen charge clarifies a moment many trials reach: the point where a jury says it is stuck. What happens next — whether the jurors are sent back with encouragement, and in what terms — is governed by rules that try, imperfectly and differently across systems, to balance the value of a verdict against the danger of a coerced one.

Questions to Explore About an Allen Charge

Questions that tend to clarify how an Allen charge applies in a specific situation:

1. Does the relevant jurisdiction permit a supplemental anti-deadlock instruction, and in what form?
2. What exactly did the instruction say, and did it avoid pressuring jurors in the minority?
3. At what point in deliberation was it given, and how many times?
4. Did the jury still have the option to remain deadlocked after the instruction?
5. How does the relevant jurisdiction draw the line between encouragement and coercion?
6. Is there a basis to question whether a particular charge crossed that line?