could be reached was made. A juror responded, “No, sir, we haven’t been able so far. Judge, we stand 11 to 1.” Gidley, supra, at 114, 95 So. 330. With this knowledge the judge proceeded to give a modified “Allen charge” which contained patently coercive language. At one point the judge stated, “The business of the courts cannot be disposed of by mistrials.” Gidley, supra at 114, 95 So. 330. In the case at bar, the court gave no “Allen charge” and did not admonish the jury to reach a verdict. The judge’s inquiry in this case was made for the purpose of determining the practicability of allowing the jury, which had requested a review of some of the testimony, more time for deliberation. We find no reversible error here. See also, Orr v. State, 269 Ala. 176, 111 So.2d 639 (Ala.1959) (<HOLDING>); Ex Parte Morris, 465 So.2d 1180, 1183-84
holding that party who noted issue and made several broad conclusory statements on appeal waived argument for failure to develop holding that several coercive statements made in combination required reversal 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 allen charge given by court was coercive and required a new trial holding that failure to give explanation of allegations required reversal