Legal Opinion
State v. Howard
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 12, 1989No. 87-2154PublishedCited by 135 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
The sole issue before *21this court is whether the supplemental jury instruction given to the jury on July 31,1981 was coercive in the sense that it pressured members of the jury who were in the minority to abandon their positions. The essential question becomes whether the supplemental instruction given to the jury by the trial judge, known as the Allen charge, is allowed in Ohio.
The Allen charge or “dynamite” charge, as it is also known, arises from Allen v. United States (1896), 164 U.S. 492. In Allen, the United States Supreme Court set forth a summary of the supplemental instruction given…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Allen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Lowenfield v. PhelpsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. John Fioravanti, Nicholas Panaccione, and Angelo Pepe, Nicholas PanaccioneCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
- State v. HesterOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- People v. GainerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by135 opinions
- State v. DennisOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- John W. Byrd, Jr. v. Terry L. Collins, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- Alton Coleman v. Betty Mitchell, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
- State v. LozaOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. MasonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
130 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.