The Allen Charge Project: Connecticut

The key Connecticut case on the Allen Charge came back in 1881. It was decided by the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut and involved man by the name of James Smith, who also was known as “Chip.”

In State v. Smith, 49 Conn. 376 (Conn. 1881)), James “Chip” Smith was charged with murder in the first degree in connection with the killing of Daniel I. Hayes in New Haven County. After he was convicted, Smith appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the court erred by not complying with his request to charge that ‘each juror in this case must be governed by his own judgment, founded upon the law and the evidence, and must not be governed, controlled or influenced by the judgment or opinions of others in agreeing to a verdict.'”

The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut responded by concluding that

We think this is not sound law, and that the court would not have been justified in complying with the request. Although the verdict to which each juror agrees must, of course, be his own conclusion and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusions of his fellows, yet in order to bring twelve minds to a unanimous result, the jurors should examine with candor the questions submitted to them and with due regard and deference to the opinions of each other. In conferring together the jury ought to pay proper respect to each other’s opinions, and listen with candor to each other’s arguments. If much the larger number of the panel are for a conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether the doubt in his own mind is a reasonable one which makes no impression upon the minds of so many men equally honest, equally intelligent with himself, who have heard the same evidence, with the same attention, and with equal desire to arrive at the truth, and under the sanction of the same oath. And on the other hand, if a majority are for acquittal, the minority ought seriously to ask themselves whether they may not reasonably, and ought not to, doubt the conclusions of a judgment which is not concurred in by most of those with whom they are associated, and distrust the weight or sufficiency of that evidence which fails to carry conviction to the minds of their fellows. This is substantially what was stated to the jury in Commonwealth v. Tucy, 8 Cush., 1, and sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts.

When jurors are deadlocked in Connecticut cases, judges now have the option of giving a similar instruction, which is called the “Chip Smith instruction.” As the Supreme Court of Connecticut noted in State v. Angel T., 973 A.2d 1207 (Conn. 2009),

“A Chip Smith instruction reminds the jurors that they must act unanimously, while also encouraging a deadlocked jury to reach unanimity…. A similar jury instruction, known as an Allen charge, is utilized in the federal courts.”

-CM