When the Matthew Farwell jury comes back Tuesday morning, the first order of business may be a short speech from the judge. After jurors told Chief U.S. District Judge Denise Casper on Monday, November 9, 2026, that they were “in a deadlock that looks like it will not change any time soon,” WCVB reported, former Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley told the station the judge will most likely give what is called an Allen charge, or “dynamite charge.”
Here is what an Allen charge is, what federal law in Massachusetts requires it to say, and where the line falls between encouraging a jury and coercing one. Farwell, 40, a former Stoughton police detective, is charged with killing Sandra Birchmore, 23, who was pregnant, and her unborn child in Canton in February 2021. He has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent.
Where things stand
- Two notes. Two notes from the jury were read in court Monday afternoon, NBC10 Boston reported. The first was about scheduling. The deadlock note was sent after jurors had not heard back on the first, according to NBC10.
- The lawyers. Casper asked both sides for recommendations. Prosecutors asked that the jury return to deliberations, and the defense said that sounded good to them but asked for an 8:30 a.m. meeting on further instructions for the jury, NBC10 reported. WCVB reported that both sides agreed jurors should return Tuesday.
- The schedule. Jurors were told to return for a 9 a.m. start Tuesday, NBC10 reported. There was no mention from the judge of the substance of the notes, according to NBC10.
Neither outlet has reported which instruction, if any, Casper will give. Coakley’s view is a prediction, not a report of what the judge said.
What an Allen charge is
The name comes from Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), which we verified and read on CourtListener. The Supreme Court approved an instruction telling jurors that “the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of his fellows,” but that they “should listen, with a disposition to be convinced, to each other’s arguments.”
That is the tension in every Allen charge. The judge asks jurors to keep trying and to take one another’s views seriously, while telling them not to give up an honest conviction just to end the case. Coakley described it to WCVB as meaning that if one juror is on one side or another, they need to be willing to listen to the other side.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the practice nearly a century later. “The use of a supplemental charge has long been sanctioned,” the Court wrote in Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988), also verified.
The First Circuit’s three required elements
Farwell is on trial in federal court in Boston, so the rules come from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. That court has been unusually specific. In United States v. Hernandez-Albino, 177 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 1999), which we read on CourtListener, it explained why:
“Any supplemental instruction in response to a jury’s deadlock can have a significant coercive effect by intimating that some jury members should capitulate to others’ views, or by suggesting that the members should compromise their rational positions in order to reach an agreement.”
To limit that risk, the First Circuit requires three elements. Quoting the court:
| Element | What the court must do |
|---|---|
| 1. Both sides reconsider | “Expressly instruct both the minority and the majority to reexamine their positions,” so that the burden of reconsideration “is not shouldered exclusively by those jury members holding the minority view.” |
| 2. The right not to agree | “Acknowledge that the jury has the right not to agree.” |
| 3. The burden of proof | “Remind the jury that the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt remains, as always, with the government.” |
The First Circuit has “consistently refrained from offering any definite wording,” the court wrote, but the instruction “should have referenced in some way all three essential elements.” It traced the elements to a 1971 decision and said it had followed them “with unwavering devotion ever since.” And quoting an earlier case, it said “any supplemental instruction which urges the jury to return to its deliberations must include the three balancing elements.”
In Hernandez-Albino itself, the trial judge left out the second and third elements. The First Circuit called that plain error. It still affirmed the conviction, because defense counsel had not objected at the time and the court found that, given how long the jury deliberated afterward and the consistency of the verdict, the jury was not coerced.
When a judge goes too far
The line is coercion. In Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445 (1965), verified on CourtListener, jurors sent a note about two hours into deliberations saying they could not agree. The judge told them, “You have got to reach a decision in this case.” The Supreme Court found that statement coercive “in its context and under all the circumstances” and ordered a new trial. The government itself had conceded the principle: “jurors may not be coerced into surrendering views conscientiously held.”
Courts still use that “context and all the circumstances” test today. Lowenfield applied it, and so did the First Circuit in Hernandez-Albino.
What Casper has already told this jury
Casper’s Friday instructions already touched the same themes: reach a verdict if possible, but not by surrendering an honest conviction, CBS News Boston reported. She also told jurors, “Remember you are not to tell anyone, and that includes me, how the jury stands numerically or otherwise” until a verdict is returned, according to CBS. Neither WCVB nor NBC10 reported any vote count, and we do not know the split or which way it leans.
What could happen after an Allen charge
- A verdict. The jury could reach a unanimous verdict on both counts.
- A partial verdict. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(b), a jury may return a verdict on any count it agrees on. Farwell faces two counts.
- Another deadlock. If jurors report again that they cannot agree, the judge can declare a mistrial. Rule 26.3 requires her first to give each side a chance to comment, consent or object, and suggest alternatives.
- A retrial is possible. A hung jury does not end the case. In Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (1984), the Supreme Court held “that the failure of the jury to reach a verdict is not an event which terminates jeopardy.” The U.S. Attorney’s Office would decide whether to try Farwell again.
Our report on Monday’s deadlock note covers those options in more detail.
The state court version
Massachusetts state courts use their own deadlock instruction under state law, not the First Circuit’s rules. It was given in the first Karen Read trial in 2024 before that case ended in a mistrial, as we noted Monday. NBC10 pointed out that Farwell’s is the latest major Massachusetts criminal case where jurors reported a deadlock, after Read’s first trial and the Lindsay Clancy trial in September. Both of those were in state court.
Frequently asked questions
What is an Allen charge?
A supplemental instruction given to a deadlocked jury that urges jurors to listen to one another and reconsider, while reminding them each verdict must reflect each juror’s own judgment. It is named for Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896).
Why is it called a dynamite charge?
It is meant to break a deadlock. The First Circuit noted in Hernandez-Albino that the instruction is described as a “dynamite” charge or an Allen charge.
What must an Allen charge say in federal court in Massachusetts?
Under First Circuit law, it must tell both the majority and the minority to reexamine their views, acknowledge that the jury has the right not to agree, and remind jurors that the government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Will the Farwell jury get an Allen charge?
That has not been reported. Former Attorney General Martha Coakley told WCVB the judge will most likely give one. The defense asked for an 8:30 a.m. meeting Tuesday on further instructions, NBC10 reported.
Can an Allen charge be coercive?
Yes. In Jenkins v. United States, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial after a judge told a deadlocked jury, “You have got to reach a decision in this case.” Courts look at the charge in its context and under all the circumstances.
What happens if the jury is still deadlocked?
The judge can declare a mistrial after hearing from both sides. The government could then retry the case.
Sources: WCVB and NBC10 Boston, November 9, 2026; CBS News Boston, November 6, 2026. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896); Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445 (1965); Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (1984); Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988); and United States v. Hernandez-Albino, 177 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 1999), verified and read on CourtListener. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 26.3 and 31, read at Cornell’s Legal Information Institute. General information, not legal advice.