Thirty five years ago today, the Supreme Court decided State v. Czachor, 82 N.J. 392 (1980). In an opinion by Justice Handler, the Court revolutionized the criminal law by abandoning the so-called “Allen charge,” named for Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896). The Allen charge, then contained in New Jersey’s Model Jury Charges, was a direction to a jury that appeared deadlocked. It urged that dissenting members reexamine their views in light of the contrary opinion of the majority of the jury.
In Czachor, the Court held that the Allen charge was improperly coercive, in that it applied only to the minority, asking only them to reevaluate their viewpoint and, in effect, to abandon their own independent judgment in favor of the will of the majority. That violated the principle that jury verdicts in criminal cases “reflect unanimity of agreement freely arrived at by each juror.”
Justice Handler noted that scholars and courts in many other jurisdictions had rejected the Allen charge, and the Court proceeded to join those states in repudiating the Allen charge in New Jersey. The Court directed that a model charge created by the ABA be used in place of the Allen charge. That model charge urged the jurors to continue their deliberations, and to approach those deliberations with an open mind to the viewpoints of others. That admonition applied to all the jurors, not just those in the minority, as the Allen charge had done.
What then became known as the “Czachor charge” has continued to be given in criminal cases. That charge has occasionally been discussed in subsequent published decisions, the most notable being State v. Figueroa, 190 N.J. 219 (2007).
The current version of that charge, drawn from the Model Jury Charges (Criminal), “Judge’s Instructions On Further Jury Deliberations” (2013), states: “It is your duty, as jurors, to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous but do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. You are not partisans. You are judges– judges of the facts.”