A judge has instructed jurors to continue their discussions in the trial of Daniel Penny, who is accused of manslaughter in connection with the chokehold death of Jordan Neely on a New York City subway last year. The jury, consisting of seven women and five men, reported being deadlocked on the manslaughter charge, which is the primary accusation against Penny. He has pleaded not guilty and is also facing a charge of criminally negligent homicide.
The jury has been deliberating since Tuesday and notified Judge Maxwell Wiley on Friday that they were unable to reach a unanimous decision on the manslaughter charge. Before deliberations commenced, Judge Wiley informed the jury that a unanimous verdict was necessary for them to proceed to the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide. They were tasked with determining whether Penny’s actions directly led to Neely’s death and if those actions were reckless or unjustified.
The incident occurred on May 1, 2023, when Penny, a former Marine and architecture student, encountered Neely, who was behaving erratically on a subway train. Witnesses reported that Neely expressed feelings of despair and threw his jacket on the floor before Penny placed him in a chokehold that reportedly lasted six minutes, continuing even after the train reached the Broadway-Lafayette station. Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man with a documented history of mental illness, had synthetic marijuana in his system at the time of his passing.
This case has sparked significant public discourse on issues such as racial justice, subway safety, homelessness, and the treatment of mental health in urban settings. Penny’s legal team argued that he acted to protect fellow passengers and did not set out to cause harm. However, the medical examiner’s autopsy concluded that Neely died from neck compression due to the chokehold, a finding that Penny’s lawyers have challenged.
During the proceedings, Penny’s attorney, Thomas Kenniff, sought to have the judge declare a mistrial, citing the lengthy deliberation time as excessive for what they perceived to be a straightforward case. Conversely, the prosecution requested that the jury be given an Allen charge—an instruction for deadlocked juries to continue their discussions towards a unanimous verdict.
Judge Wiley ultimately decided that the jury’s conscientious approach warranted the Allen charge and encouraged them to persist in their efforts. He acknowledged the challenges they faced but affirmed the importance of thorough deliberation before reaching a verdict.
In a notable development, the jurors have indicated a need for further clarification on certain legal definitions, underlining their commitment to understanding the complexities of the case. This reflects their serious engagement with the evidence and legal standards, offering a glimmer of hope that they may arrive at a just resolution.
As the jury continues to navigate this challenging case, their dedication to ensuring a fair verdict is commendable. Public interest remains high, and the outcome could have broader implications for societal issues related to justice and mental health.