The judge presiding over the trial of Daniel Penny, who faces accusations of fatally choking Jordan Neely on a New York City subway last year, has dismissed the more serious manslaughter charge after the jury reported they were unable to reach a unanimous decision. As a result, the jury will now only deliberate on the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which carries a maximum penalty of four years in prison. Penny has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
During deliberations, which resumed on Monday, the jury of seven women and five men indicated their struggle to reach a consensus regarding the manslaughter charge. Judge Maxwell Wiley instructed the jurors to continue deliberating with open minds after they reported their deadlock. He subsequently informed them that they could now focus on the lesser charge, stating, “You are now free to consider count two,” though he acknowledged that he was uncertain how this would affect their decision-making process.
The incident occurred on May 1, 2023, when Penny, a 26-year-old former Marine, confronted Neely, a 30-year-old individual with a documented history of mental illness and homelessness, as he exhibited erratic behavior on the subway. Witnesses testified that Neely had expressed feelings of despair and threw his jacket to the ground before Penny applied a chokehold that lasted for six minutes, continuing even after the train reached a stop. Neely’s death was attributed to neck compression by a city medical examiner, a finding that defense attorneys dispute, asserting that Penny had acted in self-defense and not with intent to cause harm.
The trial reflects broader societal issues, including debates about racial justice, public safety in subway systems, and the challenges surrounding homelessness and mental health. The case has sparked significant discussion within the community and raised awareness of these critical issues.
Despite the challenges faced by the jury, Judge Wiley praised their conscientious approach and urged them to strive for a just verdict without compromising their principles. As they continue their deliberations, there is room for hope that this case may lead to meaningful conversations and changes regarding the treatment of mental health and homelessness in urban environments.
As the jury prepares to refocus its attention on the remaining charge, many observers await the outcome and its implications for future cases and public policies.