In a recent development in the trial of Daniel Penny, the judge has dismissed the second-degree manslaughter charge against him after the jury reported twice that they could not reach a unanimous verdict. This significant legal decision allows the jury to now consider the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which could lead to a maximum sentence of four years in prison. Previously, if found guilty of manslaughter, Penny could have faced up to 15 years.
The dismissal followed a morning where the jury communicated to the judge that they were at an impasse regarding the manslaughter charge. Despite being instructed to continue deliberating, a second message from the jury later in the day confirmed they still could not agree. Consequently, the judge granted the prosecution’s request to dismiss the manslaughter charge.
Penny, a 26-year-old Marine veteran, is facing legal repercussions related to the chokehold death of Jordan Neely on a subway last year. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges of both manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. Throughout the trial, the jury has been reviewing various pieces of evidence, such as cell phone and police bodycam footage, and the testimony from the Medical Examiner who ruled Neely’s death was caused by compression of the neck.
Jurors have also sought to revisit parts of the judge’s instructions regarding legal definitions, signaling their need for clarity on critical terms like “recklessness” and “negligence.”
As deliberations head into their fifth day, there remains a cautious sense of hope for both sides as they await the jury’s decision on the remaining charge. Whatever the outcome, it underscores the complexities surrounding issues of self-defense, mental health, and the responsibilities of individuals involved in public confrontations.
Summary: Daniel Penny’s second-degree manslaughter charge has been dismissed after a jury was unable to reach a consensus. He now faces a lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide. The trial continues as the jury deliberates. This case highlights ongoing dialogues about public safety and individual accountability.