A judge has dismissed the manslaughter charge against Daniel Penny, who is on trial for allegedly using a deadly chokehold on Jordan Neely in a New York City subway last year, after jurors reported they were deadlocked. As a result, the jury will now only consider the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which could lead to a maximum sentence of four years. Penny pleads not guilty to the charges.
During the proceedings, the jurors, consisting of seven women and five men, communicated with the judge multiple times, indicating their inability to achieve a consensus regarding the manslaughter charge. In response to their deadlock, Judge Maxwell Wiley instructed the jury to continue deliberating with an open mind following what is known as an Allen charge.
The incident in question took place on May 1, 2023, when Penny, a former Marine and architecture student, encountered an agitated Neely, who was reportedly experiencing homelessness and had a history of mental illness. Witnesses stated that Neely appeared distressed and made alarming statements before Penny restrained him in a chokehold lasting up to six minutes. Neely died from compression to his neck, according to a city medical examiner.
The case has attracted significant attention due to its implications concerning racial justice, public safety in the subway system, and the challenges surrounding mental health and homelessness in the city. While Penny’s defense team argues that he acted in self-defense to protect fellow passengers, the prosecution emphasizes the deadly consequences of his actions.
Following the dismissal of the manslaughter charge, juror deliberations will resume, with the jurors reflecting on the lesser charge. The legal teams for both sides have expressed their concerns regarding the jury’s deliberation process, with the defense attorney arguing that pressing jurors to reach a consensus could lead to coercion.
Despite the serious nature of the case, it highlights the complexity of the justice system and the challenges jurors face in reaching a verdict. The judge has encouraged the jurors to maintain their integrity and strive for a just conclusion.
A potential silver lining in this situation is the emphasis on jurors’ conscientiousness as they navigate through complicated legal and moral questions surrounding self-defense, mental health, and public safety. Their careful approach to deliberation suggests a commitment to ensuring that all aspects of the case are thoroughly considered, which is a crucial element of a fair trial.
In summary, the trial’s outcome may have broader implications for public discourse on safety and mental health in urban settings, urging future attention and potential reform in addressing such societal challenges.