Can a Judge Push a Jury to Reach a Decision with Instructions?
In State v. Boyd, 206 Kan. 597 (1971), the Kansas Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a judge can give a coercive jury instruction—commonly known as an Allen charge—to encourage a jury to reach a verdict after they have already retired for deliberation.
Can Coercive Jury Instructions Be Given?
An Allen instruction is a type of jury instruction designed to encourage jurors to reconsider their positions in the face of a deadlock and try to reach a consensus. It is named after the U.S. Supreme Court case Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896). However, these instructions are controversial because they can potentially pressure jurors to abandon their honest beliefs simply to achieve unanimity, which might violate the principle of fair deliberation.
The court in Boyd highlighted that the use of such an instruction is not generally recommended because it may lead to prejudicial error by putting undue pressure on the jurors. However, it did not rule that Allen instructions are inherently impermissible. The main concern is when and how the instruction is given.
Timing of the Instruction:
The court strongly discouraged giving an Allen instruction after the jury has already retired to deliberate. In Boyd, the trial court gave an Allen-type instruction to the jury the morning after they had begun deliberations. This kind of post-deliberation instruction is criticized because it can be perceived as pressuring the jury into reaching a decision, potentially resulting in an unfair verdict.
The Kansas Supreme Court had previously advised that if such instructions are to be given, it should be done before the jury retires to deliberate, not afterward, as this reduces the potential for coercion.
Waiving Objections to the Instruction:
In Boyd, the defendant's attorney expressed satisfaction with the instruction, waived any objections, and consented to the court giving the instruction. Because of this, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the defendant could not claim prejudicial error on appeal. The court reasoned that since the defendant had agreed to the instruction at trial, they were not in a position to raise the issue afterward.
Court's Conclusion:
While coercive instructions like the Allen charge are not outright banned, they are discouraged after deliberations have started.
A judge can give an instruction to encourage the jury to reach a verdict, but it must be done carefully to avoid undue pressure on the jurors.
If a defendant consents to the instruction at trial, they cannot later challenge it on appeal as being coercive or prejudicial.
The Instruction Given:
The specific instruction given in Boyd emphasized the need for the jury to respect one another's opinions, to reconsider their views carefully, and to deliberate in the spirit of fairness. It noted the expense of the trial and the unlikelihood that a future jury would be better positioned to decide the case. This mirrors the instructions given in State v. Oswald, 197 Kan. 251 (1966), which were similarly coercive but legally acceptable under certain circumstances.
Key Takeaways:
Coercive instructions are permissible but not recommended after jury deliberations have begun.
Allen instructions should ideally be given before deliberation, to avoid the appearance of pressure.
A defendant who consents to the instruction at trial waives the right to challenge it on appeal.