not a “serious danger that a miscarriage of justice has occurred-that is, that an innocent person has been convicted.” Johnson, 302 F.3d at 150. Therefore, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the basis of the weight of evidence. VI. Coerced Verdict Based on Improper Jury Instruction After five days of deliberation, the jurors informed the District Judge that they were deadlocked. In response to their note, the Court gave a supplemental jury charge pointing out the importance of the case to both parties and the desirability of a verdict. The District Court also noted that the jury had “deliberated for only five days.” Following the charge, the jury deliberated for two more days and then returned a verdic 502 F.2d 914, 935-36 (3d Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>). Although the Supreme Court held in Allen that
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 that allen charge given by court was coercive and required a new trial 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 trial court was not required to instruct the jury to continue deliberations because despite jurors initial indication that the verdict was not hers she unequivocally affirmed the verdict in response to additional questions holding that under the circumstances the deception was so unfair as to be coercive