Judge Maxwell Wiley has officially dismissed the second-degree manslaughter charge against Daniel Penny in connection with the death of Jordan Neely. This decision was made at the request of prosecutors after jurors indicated they remained deadlocked on the charge. The judge will motivate the jury to resume deliberation on a lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which pertains to Neely’s death last year on a New York City subway.
Defense attorney Thomas Kenniff expressed opposition to this action, contending it could lead to a “coercive or a compromised verdict.” He reiterated his request for a mistrial. For now, the jury must focus solely on the charge of criminally negligent homicide.
Penny, a 25-year-old ex-Marine, applied a six-minute chokehold on Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man, after Neely boarded the subway behaving erratically. Witness testimonies portrayed Neely as acting threateningly, a sentiment echoed by Penny’s legal team. The city’s medical examiner confirmed that Neely died as a result of the chokehold.
Originally faced with charges of both manslaughter and negligent homicide, Penny has pleaded not guilty to both. During deliberation, the jury sent multiple notes indicating their inability to reach a unanimous decision regarding the manslaughter charge.
Judge Wiley has also suggested providing the jury with an Allen charge, which involves instructions aimed at encouraging a hung jury to continue discussions. Despite a request for a mistrial from Penny’s attorney, the judge deemed it premature to take such action at this stage.
The jury’s verification of their inability to reach a consensus on the manslaughter charge prompted Judge Wiley to remind them of the importance of moving forward in their evaluation.
The case touches on broader themes of societal safety and individual rights, echoing historical cases in New York’s legal landscape. As deliberations continue, there remains hope that clarity in legal standards and standards of reasonableness will yield a thorough and fair assessment of the facts.
While the complexity of the trial is notable, it reflects the judicial system’s steadfast dedication to due process and the need for jurors to weigh the nuances of reasonableness in high-stakes legal cases. This situation, like many before it, encourages community discourse around public safety, mental health, and the impact of behavior in public spaces, pivotal issues in today’s society.