Utah Court of Appeals
When do Allen instructions become unconstitutionally coercive? State v. Ginter Explained
Summary
Ginter was convicted of communications fraud and organizing a pyramid scheme through his Patriot Money Gifting Program. After the jury reported a 7-1 stalemate, the trial court gave a modified Allen instruction over defense objection, and the jury returned a guilty verdict within 18 minutes.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed when modified Allen instructions—also known as “dynamite” or “verdict-urging” instructions—cross the line from permissible judicial guidance to unconstitutional coercion in State v. Ginter.
Background and Facts
Thomas Ginter operated the Patriot Money Gifting Program, recruiting participants with promises of substantial returns on small investments using “liberty coins.” After his conviction for communications fraud and organizing a pyramid scheme, the jury deliberated for over three hours before reporting they were deadlocked 7-1. The trial court responded by having the bailiff deliver dinner order forms, implicitly communicating the court would not dismiss them soon. When the jury formally reported their stalemate, the court gave a modified Allen instruction over defense objection. The jury returned a guilty verdict within 18 minutes.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the modified Allen instruction violated Ginter’s due process rights by impermissibly coercing the holdout juror to acquiesce to the majority position.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the two-part test from State v. Harry: an Allen instruction is coercive if either the language is coercive per se or coercive under the specific circumstances. The instruction specifically directed minority jurors to “reconsider whether your doubt is a reasonable one,” while only requiring majority jurors to reconsider if fellow jurors had reasonable doubt. This created an unbalanced directive that singled out the holdout juror for pressure. Combined with the court’s knowledge of the specific 7-1 split, the rapid verdict after the instruction, and language about the expense of retrial, the circumstances rendered the instruction unconstitutionally coercive.
Practice Implications
Defense attorneys should object to Allen instructions when the court knows the specific jury breakdown, particularly when the instruction targets minority jurors differently than majority jurors. The court noted this was the second reversal in five years involving problematic Allen instructions, suggesting Utah practitioners should carefully scrutinize these instructions and consider challenging their continued use in their current form.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Ginter
Citation
2013 UT App 92
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20110332-CA
Date Decided
April 18, 2013
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A modified Allen instruction was coercive under the circumstances where the court knew of a 7-1 jury split and the holdout juror was specifically directed to reconsider her position while the majority was not asked to reconsider.
Standard of Review
Correctness for constitutional questions
Practice Tip
Carefully scrutinize Allen instructions when the court knows the specific jury split, as targeting minority jurors for reconsideration while not asking the majority to reconsider creates an unacceptably coercive atmosphere.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.