A New York judge dismissed a manslaughter charge against Daniel Penny, who is accused of fatally choking Jordan Neely on a subway last year, after jurors indicated they were unable to reach a consensus on that charge. The judge’s decision means the jury will now deliberate only on the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which carries a maximum sentence of four years. Penny maintains his innocence in the case.
Judge Maxwell Wiley instructed jurors, who are made up of seven women and five men, to focus on the lesser charge starting Monday. He noted their struggles with the more serious manslaughter charge, as they communicated with the court twice about their inability to agree. Previously, jurors were instructed that they must reach a unanimous decision on the manslaughter charge before considering the lesser charge.
The incident occurred on May 1, 2023, when Penny, a former Marine and architecture student, intervened as Neely, a homeless man with a history of mental illness, behaved erratically on the subway. Witnesses reported that Neely was expressing distress about hunger and life struggles, prompting Penny to restrain him in a chokehold, which lasted approximately six minutes, even continuing after the subway train stopped. Neely later died due to compression to his neck, a finding contested by Penny’s legal team.
The case has sparked significant discussion regarding issues of racial justice, subway safety, and the city’s approach to homelessness and mental health care. Penny’s attorneys argue that he acted in self-defense and did not mean to cause harm, but rather sought to protect fellow passengers until professional help could arrive.
As deliberations progressed, jurors expressed thoroughness in their approach, even requesting to review video evidence and testimonies multiple times. Judge Wiley acknowledged their conscientious efforts and advised them to continue deliberating while emphasizing the importance of reaching a just verdict.
This ruling marks a significant moment in a case that combines complex legal issues with broader societal concerns. The move to focus on the lesser charge may allow for a resolution that acknowledges the nuances of the event while considering the implications of how society addresses mental health and safety in public spaces.
Overall, the ongoing deliberation process showcases the complexity of the justice system, where the jury’s commitment to thorough examination can lead to a more nuanced outcome. It is hopeful that regardless of the verdict, this case can inspire deeper conversations about the challenges faced by vulnerable populations and how communities can better support those in crisis.