The judge presiding over the trial of Daniel Penny, who is accused of fatally choking Jordan Neely on a New York City subway, dismissed the manslaughter charge on Friday after jurors reported being deadlocked. Following a request from prosecutors, the jurors will now deliberate solely on the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which carries a maximum sentence of four years. Penny, who has pleaded not guilty, was informed by Judge Maxwell Wiley that they could now concentrate on the second count.
The jury, consisting of seven women and five men, will continue their discussions starting Monday. They had previously communicated to the judge twice on Friday that they were unable to reach a unanimous decision regarding the manslaughter charge. In response to their first note, Wiley provided them with an Allen charge, encouraging continued deliberation with an open mind. Before commencing deliberations, the judge instructed the jury that they needed to achieve a unanimous verdict on the manslaughter charge before moving on to consider the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide.
The events leading to Neely’s death occurred on May 1, 2023, when Penny, a former Marine, encountered Neely, who was reportedly displaying erratic behavior on the subway. Witnesses described Neely, a 30-year-old former Michael Jackson impersonator, as expressing feelings of hunger and despair. Penny placed Neely in a chokehold lasting approximately six minutes, which continued even after the train reached the next station. Neely, who struggled with homelessness and mental illness, had synthetic marijuana in his system at the time of his death.
This case has raised significant discussions regarding racial justice, subway safety, and the broader issues surrounding homelessness and mental health in New York City. Penny maintains that he acted to ensure the safety of other passengers and did not intend to harm Neely.
The prosecution and defense have engaged in tense exchanges regarding the jury’s deliberations, specifically concerning whether they should be compelled to continue reaching a conclusion on the more severe manslaughter charge. The judge ultimately decided it was premature to declare a mistrial, reassuring the jurors about the common difficulties faced in reaching a unanimous decision.
As deliberations continue on the less serious charge, the jury has consistently engaged with evidence, requesting to review relevant video footage and clarify legal definitions. The judge expressed optimism regarding the conscientious nature of the jury’s work, urging them to strive for a fair verdict.
In summary, while the dismissal of the manslaughter charge reflects the complexities of the case and the ongoing struggles of the jury, it also opens a path for a different outcome as they now focus on determining the validity of the lesser charge. This case represents a crucial moment in New York City’s ongoing dialogue about safety, mental health, and social justice.