A New York judge has removed a manslaughter charge against Daniel Penny, who has been accused of causing the death of Jordan Neely on a subway last year. This decision came after jurors indicated they were unable to reach a unanimous conclusion on the manslaughter charge, prompting the judge to allow the jury to deliberate only on the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which carries a maximum penalty of four years.
Judge Maxwell Wiley informed the jurors to focus on the lesser charge after they submitted notes expressing their deadlock. They were instructed to deliberate on whether Penny’s actions directly caused Neely’s death and whether those actions were reckless and unjustified. Penny, a former Marine and architecture student, has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The incident in question occurred on May 1, 2023, during which Neely, a former performer, exhibited erratic behavior on a subway train. Witnesses recounted that he threw his jacket and expressed distress about his circumstances. Penny intervened by placing Neely in a chokehold for approximately six minutes, leading to Neely’s subsequent death. Medical examinations determined that the cause of death was due to neck compression. Meanwhile, Penny’s defense counters that he sought to protect other subway passengers and did not intend to harm Neely.
The case has sparked significant discussions regarding racial justice and the broader issues of homelessness and mental health in New York City. As the jury continues its deliberations, it remains to be seen what conclusion they will reach regarding the lesser charge on which they are now focused.
The atmosphere in the courtroom has been tense, with both sides debating the jurors’ deliberation process. Penny’s legal team has argued for a mistrial due to the perceived pressure on the jurors to reach a unanimous decision on a lesser charge, while prosecutors expressed the need for the jury to continue their discussions.
Judge Wiley has commended the jury’s diligence, encouraging them to remain focused and continue deliberating responsibly. The jurors have shown conscientious engagement by requesting to review videos of the incident and clarifications on legal definitions, indicating a serious approach to their responsibilities.
As the case proceeds, there is a sense of hope that a fair resolution can be achieved, as the judicial process works to balance the complexities of the situation. The jurors’ commitment to their duty may lead to a thoughtful outcome that reflects justice for all parties involved.