An Allen charge is given by the judge when the jury in a criminal trial indicates that it is deadlocked. The Allen charge encourages the jurors to re-examine their opinions in continued deliberation and to attempt to reach a unanimous verdict. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896); Sanders v. State, 290
Ga. 445 (2012); Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63 (2010). The decision of whether to give a jury in disagreement the Allen charge, including deciding the length of time a jury may be allowed or required to deliberate before the charge is given, generally lies within the discretion of the judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion. Contreras v. State, 314 Ga. App. 825 (2012); Walker v. State, 308 Ga. App. 176 (2011).
An Allen charge should not pressure a jury to reach a verdict. The Georgia Supreme Court disapproved of language instructing jurors that the case "must be decided by some jury.” Burchette v. State, 278 Ga. 1 (2004). However, the inclusion of such language does not require that a conviction be reversed where that language was only a small part of an otherwise fair and non-coercive charge. In such cases, the language does not cause the charge to become so "coercive so as to cause a juror to abandon an honest conviction for reasons other than those based upon the trial or the arguments of other jurors." Luker v. State, 291 Ga. App. 434 (2008). Moreover, even in situations where the questionable language is more prominent, other factors, such as the length of deliberations following the Allen charge and the results of polling the jury on the verdict, may be considered to determine whether a given charge is unduly coercive. Scott v. State, 290 Ga. 883 (2012); Widner v. State, 280 Ga. 675 (2006); Lowery v. State, 282 Ga. 68 (2007). The Allen charge does not have to include words to the jurors not to surrender their conscientious convictions. Callahan v. State, 317 Ga. App. 513 (2012).
The judge cannot instruct the jury that it has to reach a verdict, but can instruct them that any verdict must be unanimous. Emerson v. State, 315 Ga. App. 105 (2012); Dukes v. State, 290 Ga. 486 (2012).
The judge is not prevented from giving an Allen charge simply because the jury volunteered the numerical extent of its division. Scott v. State, 290 Ga. 883 (2012); Sears v. State, 270 Ga. 834 (1999).
If the jury cannot reach a verdict it is called a hung jury. The judge then declares a mistrial. With limited exceptions, the judge's decision to declare a mistrial following a hung jury does not prevent the defendant from being brought to trial a second time for the same offense. Roesser v. State, 325 Ga. App. 624 (2014).