YNW Melly Trial: Jury continues deliberations after Allen Charge

On Friday afternoon, the jury indicated they were having trouble reaching a decision. As a result, the Judge gave the jury an Allen Charge, after which deliberations continued.

On Friday, the jury continued deliberations in YNW Melly’s trial, in which he is charged with two counts of first-degree murder. A full video of Friday’s proceedings is available at the link below:

On Friday afternoon, the jury sent a note—signed by the foreperson—to the judge asking what happens if they “can’t come to a decision.”¹ This is at 5:22:00 in the video above.

After receiving the jury’s question and discussion between the Judge and counsel,² the Judge brought the jury back into the courtroom³ and gave the jury an instruction that is written for deadlocked juries. The instruction starts at 5:52:00 in the video above.

This instruction is known as an “Allen Charge” and is standardized in Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 4.1 (available here). It says:

I know that all of you have worked hard to try to find a verdict in this case. It apparently has been impossible for you so far. Sometimes an early vote before discussion can make it hard to reach an agreement about the case later. The vote, not the discussion, might make it hard to see all sides of the case.

We are all aware that it is legally permissible for a jury to disagree. There are two things a jury can lawfully do: agree on a verdict or disagree on what the facts of the case may truly be.

There is nothing to disagree about on the law. The law is as I told you. If you have any disagreements about the law, I should clear them up for you now. That should be my problem, not yours.

If you disagree over what you believe the evidence showed, then only you can resolve that conflict, if it is to be resolved.

I have only one request of you. By law, I cannot demand this of you, but I want you to go back into the jury room. Then, taking turns, tell each of the other jurors about any weakness of your own position. You should not interrupt each other or comment on each other's views until each of you has had a chance to talk. After you have done that, if you simply cannot reach a verdict, then return to the courtroom and I will declare this case mistried, and will discharge you with my sincere appreciation for your services.

You may now retire to continue with your deliberations.

The Judge did not modify this standard instruction.

After the Allen Charge, the jury continued deliberating for another three hours, approximately. At 5:15, the jury was excused for the day and taken back to the hotel for the night. They will resume deliberations tomorrow morning, starting between 8:30 and 9:00.

Any conviction by the jury must be unanimous.

---

What is an Allen Charge?

The Allen Charge comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1896 decision in Allen v. United States, in which the Court held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury related to its duty in deliberations:

The seventeenth and eighteenth assignments were taken to instructions given to the jury after the main charge was delivered, and when the jury had returned to the court, apparently for further instructions. These instructions were quite lengthy, and were, in substance, that in a large proportion of cases absolute certainty could not be expected; that, although the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of his fellows, yet they should examine the question submitted with candor, and with a proper regard and deference to the opinions of each other; that it was their duty to decide the case if they could conscientiously do so; that they should listen, with a disposition to be convinced, to each other's arguments; that, if much the larger number were for conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether his doubt was a reasonable one which made no impression upon the minds of so many men, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself. If, on the other hand, the majority were for acquittal, the minority ought to ask themselves whether they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment which was not concurred in by the majority. . . .

While, undoubtedly, the verdict of the jury should represent the opinion of each individual juror, it by no means follows that opinions may not be changed by conference in the jury room. The very object of the jury system is to secure unanimity by a comparison of views, and by arguments among the jurors themselves. It certainly cannot be the law that each juror should not listen with deference to the arguments, and with a distrust of his own judgment, if he finds a large majority of the jury taking a different view of the case from what he does himself. It cannot be that each juror should go to the jury room with a blind determination that the verdict shall represent his opinion of the case at that moment, or that he should close his ears to the arguments of men who are equally honest and intelligent as himself. There was no error in these instructions.

The Allen Charge is given to the jury “when a jury indicates that it is having problems reaching a verdict.”⁴ Therefore, the juror’s question to the Judge this afternoon prompted the Allen Charge.

---

If YNW Melly is convicted, the State will seek the death penalty, and the trial will proceed to the penalty phase. I’ll cover that in more depth if there is a conviction.

---

Prior TFDP Coverage of YNW Melly’s Trial

• The State’s discovery violation and how testimony affected jurors

• Trial court considered motion for mistrial

• Trial court denied motion for mistrial

• The jury was sent to start deliberations on Thursday

1. This was not the first message from the jury.

2. This discussion is at 5:30:00 in the video of the full day and again at 5:40:00.

3. This is at 5:50:00 in the video of the full day.

4. Campbell v. State, 186 So. 3d 577, n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (citing Roma v. State, 785 So. 2d 1269, 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)).