so the “case may be completed”; to the trial court’s discussion with the jury, undertaken in response to the jury’s wish to return home for the evening, informing the jury its only options were to deliberate into the night or return to deliberate in the morning after spending the night at a hotel, the record in this case so indicates jury coercion that it was an unreasonable application of Lowenfield for the OCCA to deny Hooks relief. a. Initial Second Stage Jury Instructions Placing the Allen charge in context, as required by Lowenfield, begins by recognizing that the relevant instructions given by the trial court prior to c is certainly one of the contextual circumstances bearing on the question of jury coercion in this particular case. Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 234, 108 S.Ct. 546 (<HOLDING>); Darks v. Mullin, 327 F.3d 1001, 1014 (10th
recognizing that before the case was submitted to the jury the trial court charged the jury that if it were unable to reach a unanimous recommendation the court would impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole holding that since the court in its charge authorized guilty finding if jury found theft by either method of accomplishment and indictment charged defendant only with first method of taking the court was unable to foreclose the possibility of a fatal variance because the jury could have convicted the appellant of a crime not charged holding that a court need only explain that a unanimous vote is required before a jury can impose the death penalty holding discretion of district court for sentencing is explicitly limited in this case by the statute which provides that life imprisonment may be imposed only if death results from the defendants actions and if the jury directs the imposition of the sentence holding that the sentence entered by the circuit court was illegal because the court had no authority to impose a sentence that exceeded the punishment fixed by the jury