the initial 7 — 5 deadlock, it appears all too possible that some jurors who might have believed that Mr. Cambareri did not shoot Papalia were willing to convict him of manslaughter for not rendering assistance. For that reason, we must carefully scrutinize the modification of the Allen charge given in this case. See Dixon v. State, 603 So.2d 86, 88 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (a modified Allen charge takes on increased significance when there is a “lack of overwhelming or clear evidence of guilt”). We agree with defense that the charge given in this case was deficient in several respects which together constitute fundamental error requiring a reversal. First, the instruction gave the jury an initial time limit of thirty minutes. See Gahley v. State, 567 So.2d 456, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>). Second, the trial court told the jury that
holding when giving an allen charge the trial court must avoid coercive deadlines holding that the trial court erred by giving a misleading instruction 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 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