“hung.” A hung jury results in a mistrial, and a retrial
may be held. Most courts view a hung jury as an out-
come to be avoided because the time and resources
devoted to the case do not lead to a verdict. If a jury
indicates to the judge that it is unable to reach a unan-
imous verdict, in an effort to avoid a mistrial, the
judge may order continued deliberation after issuing a
supplemental instruction known as the dynamite
charge. The U.S. Supreme Court first sanctioned the
use of the dynamite charge (also known as the Allen
charge) in 1896 in Allen v. United States.The exact
wording of the dynamite charge can vary, but in its
typical form, it reminds the jurors of their duty to
reach a unanimous decision, and it suggests to jurors
holding the minority position that they reconsider
their position in light of the majority’s opinion.
Proponents of the dynamite charge point out that it
appears to be an effective means of encouraging ver-
dicts. There are numerous case examples in which the
dynamite charge seemed to “blast” deadlocked juries
into returning unanimous verdicts soon after the
charge was delivered (earning it its nickname). On the
other hand, critics of the dynamite charge argue that it
unfairly pressures minority jurors into changing their
votes by suggesting that it is primarily their responsi-
bility, and not the duty of majority jurors, to recon-
sider their position. Critics worry that the charge
encourages minority jurors to acquiesce to the
majority because of normative social influence (i.e.,
conforming due to social pressure) rather than infor-
mational social influence (i.e., a true change in opin-
ion). In addition, there is concern that the charge
incorrectly suggests to jurors that they must reach a
verdict and that the jury is not permitted to hang. As a
result of these concerns, some courts have ruled
against the use of the dynamite charge, while others
have attempted to create modified versions of it.
Notably, the American Bar Association (ABA) devel-
oped guidelines for an alternate version of the dyna-
mite charge, which reminds jurors of their duty to
deliberate but does not single out minority jurors; in
fact, the ABA recommends that the instruction include
an admonition that specifically instructs jurors not to
simply acquiesce to pressure from other jurors.
The criticisms and proposed reforms of the dyna-
mite charge assume that the charge affects jurors in a
particular way; however, only a few studies have
attempted to directly assess the effect of the dynamite
charge on jury decision making. In the first study on
this topic, Saul Kassin and his colleagues recruitedundergraduates to participate as mock jurors, and after
reading a summary of a trial, the participants engaged
in what they thought were deliberations with other
jurors via written notes (in reality, there were no other
jurors). The researchers manipulated whether the par-
ticipants were part of the majority or minority group
during deliberation and whether they received the
dynamite charge or no supplementary charge after
deadlocking. Consistent with critics’ fears, the results
indicated that minority jurors who received the dyna-
mite charge were more likely to feel pressurized to
change their votes and more likely to actually change
their votes than majority jurors who received the
dynamite charge. Minority jurors were no more likely
to change their votes than majority jurors in the
no-instruction condition. In addition, majority jurors
exerted more normative pressure after receiving the
dynamite charge, suggesting perhaps that the dyna-
mite charge encourages the use of normative social
pressure.
In another study, Vicki Smith and her colleague
continued to explore the effect of the dynamite charge
by having participants read a trial transcript and then
engage in face-to-face deliberations in groups of six.
They manipulated the type of supplemental charge
deadlocked juries received, and they varied whether
the participants were a part of the majority or minor-
ity. Consistent with the results from the first study,
minority jurors who received the dynamite charge felt
more pressure and were more likely to change their
votes than majority jurors who received the dynamite
charge. Surprisingly, there was no corresponding
increase in the amount of normative pressure exerted
by majority jurors who received the dynamite charge,
indicating that the increased pressure felt by minority
jurors was directly due to the dynamite instruction.
The published research in this area suggests that
critics’ concerns that the dynamite charge may selec-
tively coerce minority jurors to capitulate to the
majority are warranted. A number of pressing ques-
tions remain, including the effects of modified ver-
sions of the dynamite charge and variations in how
and when the dynamite charge is delivered. In a more
recent exploration, Ludmyla Washula compared the
traditional dynamite charge with a version consistent
with the ABA’s recommendations. The results indi-
cated that the ABA version attenuated the majority’s
influence under certain conditions and jurors who
received the ABA version were less likely to misun-
derstand the law regarding hung juries than those who246 ———“Dynamite Charge”D-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 246