I've only seen one judge read the dynamite charge and make it sound neutral. When I've heard it out of other judges' mouths it sounds an awful lot like, "Go in there and convict this guy so we can all go home and get some supper."
I've never seen it used but here's a version of this charge pointed out to me today by another lawyer (calling it the "Titcomb Charge"):
THE COURT:So, how many people out there want that read to their jury?
What I am about to say does not mean that you are going to be made to agree or that you are going to continue deliberations until you arrive at a verdict.
Trials are expensive and the jury must decide the issues in the case. If you cannot decide, then we will have to get another jury to decide the issues. I see no reason why you as jurors are not as competent and able to decide the issues as any other jury.
It is your duty to make an honest and sincere attempt to reach a verdict. Of course, that must be unanimous. Jurors should be open-minded and listen to argument of others.
Talk over the issues and evidence freely and fairly. Each juror must decide the issue for himself or herself, but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with his or her fellow jurors.
In the course of deliberations a juror should not hesitate to re-examine his or her views and change his or her opinion if convinced it is erroneous.
Each juror in the minority view should reconsider such minority view in light of the opinion of the majority. And, likewise, each juror in the majority view should give equal consideration to the views of the minority.
No juror should surrender his or her conviction as to the weight of the evidence, solely because of the opinion of his or her fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.
As fairminded individuals, then, I'm asking you to go back, to retire, to make another honest effort to come to a conclusion on all the issues presented in the case, keeping in mind what I said to you in this instruction.
Thank you and you may retire for one more effort.