A judge has dropped the second-degree manslaughter charge against Daniel Penny in the death of Jordan Neely following a request from prosecutors, as jurors reported being unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Judge Maxwell Wiley encouraged the jury to keep deliberating on a lesser charge—criminally negligent homicide—after the jury expressed their deadlock.
The second-degree manslaughter charge, which has a maximum penalty of 15 years, was dismissed, while the lesser charge carries a maximum of four years, with no minimum sentence for either crime. Defense attorney Thomas Kenniff opposed the dismissal, arguing that the move might pressure jurors to reach a potentially non-consensual verdict on the lesser charge.
Penny, a 25-year-old former Marine, is accused of applying a chokehold on 30-year-old Neely, a homeless individual, for six minutes after an incident involving erratic behavior on the subway. Witness testimonies described Neely’s actions as threatening, which Penny’s defense has emphasized to justify the restraint used. The medical examiner has linked Neely’s death directly to the chokehold.
After over 23 hours of deliberation, the jury expressed their difficulties in reaching a consensus on the manslaughter charge, prompting Judge Wiley to issue an Allen charge, which encourages jurors to continue discussions despite their impasse. He emphasized that deliberations are inherently challenging, and reiterated that a subsequent jury would face the same decision-making difficulties.
Wiley also addressed jurors’ inquiries regarding the concept of a “reasonable person” in modifying their interpretations of the law. To convict Penny of manslaughter, they must determine whether Penny’s actions were reckless and whether he deviated significantly from what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances.
The ongoing deliberations highlight the complexities surrounding self-defense and the use of force in public spaces, issues that echo historical cases such as People v. Goetz, which fueled national conversations about race and crime.
In summary, while the dismissal of the more severe charge presents a shift in the case, it still allows the legal process to explore the complexities of criminal negligence. This case sparks vital discussions about public safety, self-defense, and societal responsibility in urban environments, providing a broader context for understanding community interactions and legal standards. Moving forward, the hope remains that this deliberation process may lead to clarity and resolution for both the victims and accused in similar incidents.