In the ongoing trial of Daniel Penny, which centers on the death of Jordan Neely, the jury has reported that it is currently “unable to come to a unanimous vote” regarding the second-degree manslaughter charge against Penny. This announcement reflects the complex nature of the case, which has garnered significant public attention.
Judge Maxwell Wiley responded to the jury’s impasse by issuing an Allen charge, a judicial instruction that encourages jurors to continue deliberating even when they find themselves at a stalemate. Penny’s lawyer, Thomas Kenniff, proposed a mistrial on the grounds that the Allen Charge could be perceived as coercive, but Judge Wiley rejected this claim, suggesting it is premature to consider a mistrial at this stage.
Since taking on the case Tuesday, the jury has spent over 20 hours in deliberations. The incident in question involved Penny, a 25-year-old former Marine, placing Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man, in a chokehold for approximately six minutes while Neely exhibited erratic behavior on a subway train. Witnesses described Neely’s actions as alarming, leading Penny’s defense to argue he acted in self-defense. However, the city’s medical examiner determined that Neely died as a result of Penny’s chokehold.
Penny has pleaded not guilty to the charges of manslaughter and negligent homicide. The verdict form instructs the jury to decide on the second-degree manslaughter charge first, which requires them to determine if Penny acted recklessly—a lesser burden than proving intent—before considering the separate charge of criminally negligent homicide.
Prosecutor Dafna Yoran expressed concern over the potential implications of the jury’s deadlock, emphasizing that failure to reach a decision could result in a new trial. Judge Wiley acknowledged the possibility of the jury addressing the second count, pending the legal authority to do so.
In response to a subsequent jury note requesting clarification on the concept of a “reasonable person,” Judge Wiley reiterated that it is ultimately up to the jurors to define this term through a two-part test related to the circumstances of the case.
This trial is echoing historical debates surrounding self-defense and the concept of “reasonableness” in the context of crime and race, reminiscent of the 1984 case involving Bernhard Goetz. As the jury continues its deliberation, many hope for a resolution that brings justice while also fostering a broader conversation about mental health, homelessness, and urban safety concerns.
In summary, as the jury faces a challenging decision-making process in this high-profile case, there remains a broader hope that the outcome can contribute to constructive discussions on the issues at hand, promoting understanding and community healing.