with their verdict. “The fact that a jury initially was deadlocked and reached a verdict only after receiving an Allen charge may support an inference that the case was close.” United States v. Jean-Baptiste, 166 F.3d 102, 109 (2d Cir.1999); see also Powell v. Collins, 332 F.3d 376 (6th Cir.2003) (finding prejudice in part because, “at one point in its sentencing deliberations, the jury informed the court that it was ‘at a stalemate’ and could not agree whether to impose a death sentence”); United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113, 127 (1st Cir.2000) (jurors’ note stating that they were “at an impasse” in their deliberations “reveal[ed] uncertainty about [the defendant’s] guilt” and “weighted] against a finding of harmless error”); Medina v. Barnes, 71 F.3d 363, 369 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Reluctance to find harmless error despite a
holding that the jurors statement at one point during their deliberations  that they might be unable to reach a unanimous verdict was a circumstance suggesting error was prejudicial holding jury verdict unanimous where jury was charged with alternative aggravating circumstance of burglary involving two different victims holding that a statement that the jurors were not required to reach a verdict but should try to do so was not coercive holding that a typographical error on the jury verdict form was harmless error because the trial court polled the jurors after the mistake was discovered to make sure that they understood the verdict that they had entered holding jury verdict unanimous where jury was charged with alternate aggravating circumstance of robbery or burglary against any one of five named victims