The 9th Circuit has held that it is per se error to give a second Allen charge where the jury has not requested one, because it conveys a message that "the jurors have acted contrary to the earlier instruction as that instruction was properly to be understood. ('Apparently you didn't listen to what I said before, so I'll repeat it.')," and that message serves no purpose other than impermissible coercion. United States v. Seawell, 550 F.2d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir. 1977); see also United States v. Evanston, (7/5/2011, 9th Cir. Ariz., No. 10-10159).
For subscription based briefing and sample instructions on this and related issues see:
Forecite National™
Forecite California™
PG IX(J) - Instructions to a Deadlocked Jury
