A judge has directed jurors to continue their deliberation in the trial of Daniel Penny, who faces manslaughter charges related to the chokehold death of Jordan Neely in May 2023. The jury reported being deadlocked and unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the manslaughter charge, which is the primary accusation against Penny, who has pleaded not guilty. Additionally, he is facing a charge of criminally negligent homicide.
Deliberations have been ongoing since Tuesday afternoon, and Friday morning, the jury sent a note to Judge Maxwell Wiley expressing their struggle to agree. Before deliberations commenced, the judge emphasized the necessity of a unanimous decision on the manslaughter charge before they could consider the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide. The jury was also tasked with determining whether Penny’s actions directly led to Neely’s death, and if so, whether those actions were reckless or unjustifiable.
Outside the jury’s presence, Penny’s attorney, Thomas Kenniff, urged the judge to declare a mistrial, arguing that the jury’s lengthy deliberation period—approximately 20 hours over four days—suggested coercion if they were instructed to keep deliberating using an Allen charge. This instruction tells a deadlocked jury to continue their discussions in hopes of reaching a consensus.
In contrast, assistant prosecutor Dafna Yoran requested that the Allen charge be applied, noting that the jury’s note marked their first acknowledgment of disagreement. During the deliberation process, jurors requested to review various pieces of evidence, including bystander videos, body camera footage from law enforcement, and medical testimony regarding Neely’s death.
Despite Kenniff’s concerns, Judge Wiley decided to give the jurors the Allen charge, stating that the case was more complex than suggested. He recognized the seriousness and conscientiousness of the jury’s efforts and remarked that declaring a mistrial was premature.
Upon reconvening the jury, Judge Wiley encouraged them to strive for a just outcome without compromising their moral integrity.
The incident at the center of the trial occurred when Penny, a former Marine and architecture student, encountered Neely, a 30-year-old man with a history of mental health issues, who exhibited erratic behavior on a subway train. Witnesses reported Neely ranting about his struggle with hunger and thirst. Penny responded by placing Neely in a chokehold that, according to prosecutors, lasted approximately six minutes, which continued even after the train stopped.
Neely’s death has been attributed to the chokehold as per the findings of a medical examiner, who noted that he died from compression of the neck. Penny’s defense team argues that he did not mean to inflict harm but intended only to restrain Neely until law enforcement arrived. They also dispute the conclusions regarding the cause of death, attributing it to a combination of factors, including a medical crisis, substance use, and the physical struggle during restraint.
This situation reflects the complex intersection of self-defense, mental health, and the impact of public safety interventions, illuminating the challenges juries face in navigating such significant cases. The ongoing deliberation highlights the judicial system’s commitment to thoroughness and the pursuit of justice, reminding us that legal processes can be intricate and require careful consideration of numerous factors.
In conclusion, as the jury continues its deliberation, the hope remains that they will arrive at a fair and just verdict, embodying the principles of our judicial system.