beliefs.” Changco, 1 F.3d at 842. Similarly, in Lorenzo, we held that even where the jury was split 11-1, an Allen charge given by the judge was not inherently coercive because the judge did not know the identity of the holdout juror; this, in turn, meant that it was unlikely that the lone holdout felt unduly pressured by the judge’s remarks. Lorenzo, 43 F.3d at 1307. Banks fails to show how the district court’s instructions in this case materially differ from those at issue in Lorenzo and Changco. First, because the jury’s note stated that three jurors were holding out and did not provide any information about the holdouts that would permit the judge to identify them, there was little possibility that the judge could place pressure on any given juror. Cf. Lorenzo, 43 F.3d at 1307 (<HOLDING>). In fact, the judge here did not give his
holding that allen charge given by court was coercive and required a new trial holding second modified allen charge coercive per se unless jury requests it holding that though judge did not question juror individually note from juror to judge requesting private meeting to ask legal question did not suggest juror would not base verdict on evidence holding that an allen charge was not inherently coercive even though jury was split 111 because the judge did not know the identity of the holdout juror holding when giving an allen charge the trial court must avoid coercive deadlines