NCJ Number
52407
Journal
Missouri Law Review Volume: 43 Issue: 4 Dated: (FALL 1978) Pages: 613-641
Date Published
1978
Length
29 pages
Annotation
THE ALLEN CHARGE TO A DEADLOCKED JURY IN THE GAINER CASE REVIEWED BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IS EXAMINED, AND STANDARD INSTRUCTION TO JURORS IN REACHING A VERDICT IS RECOMMENDED.
Abstract
WHILE THERE IS NO SINGLE OR UNIFORM SUPPLEMENTAL JURY INSTRUCTION TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF THE DEADLOCKED JURY IN CRIMINAL CASES, MOST SUCH INSTRUCTIONS TRACE THEIR ROOTS AT LEAST BACK TO THE 1896 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN ALLEN V. UNITED STATES. THE JURY IN THE ALLEN CASE BEGAN ITS DELIBERATIONS AND THEN CAME BACK INTO THE COURT ROOM AND RECEIVED ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS. THE SUPREME COURT RULED AFFIRMATIVELY ON THE PERMISSIBILITY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS. IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, A SITUATION INVOLVING AN ALLEN-TYPE CHARGE WAS CONFRONTED IN PEOPLE V. GAINER (1977). THE TRIAL COURT GAVE BASIC ALLEN-TYPE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY AFTER THE JURY REPORTED IT WAS DEADLOCKED. IN ADDITION TO THESE BASIC INSTRUCTIONS, HOWEVER, THE JURY WAS INFORMED THAT THE CASE MUST BE DECIDED AT SOME TIME. THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT WAS THUS CALLED UPON TO EVALUATE THE TRADITIONAL ALLEN CHARGE, AS WELL AS EMBELLISHMENTS ADDED BY THE TRIAL COURT. TWO MAJOR ARGUMENTS WERE EMPLOYED IN STRIKING DOWN THE ALLEN CHARGE AND THE MODIFIED INSTRUCTIONS: (1) JURORS WERE TOLD NOT TO BE CONCERNED EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND (2) REGARDLESS OF THE EXTRANEOUS EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED, THE TRIAL COURT WAS SIMPLY EXERTING OVERWHELMING AND UNFAIR PRESSURE ON DISSENTING JURORS. DESPITE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALLEN CHARGE AND THE MANY REJECTIONS OF IT, COURTS TURNING AWAY FROM THE CHARGE USUALLY HAVE DONE SO ON OTHER THAN CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. BASICALLY, CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS CENTER AROUND DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS INHERENT IN ANY CRIMINAL TRIAL AND THE WAY IN WHICH THE ALLEN CHARGE ABRIDGES THOSE REQUIREMENTS. FOUR CONTENTIONS SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR ARGUMENTS THAT THE ALLEN CHARGE VIOLATES DUE PROCESS: IT DEFEATS THE UNANIMITY RULE; IT DOES VIOLENCE TO THE 'BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT' STANDARD; THE JURY DOES NOT REMAIN IMPARTIAL; AND THE JURY IS INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER MATTERS EXTRANEOUS TO THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED IN ADDITION TO THE EVIDENCE OFFERED AT TRIAL IN MAKING ITS DETERMINATION. TO ELIMINATE THE COERCIVE AND UNFAIR CHARACTER OF THE ALLEN CHARGE, INSTRUCTIONS BASED ON THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARD ARE NEEDED. CASE LAW IS CITED. (DEP)