The judge presiding over the trial of Daniel Penny, who faces accusations of fatally choking Jordan Neely on a New York City subway, has dismissed a manslaughter charge on Friday due to jurors being unable to reach a consensus. This ruling, requested by prosecutors, leaves the jury to deliberate exclusively on the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which could result in a maximum sentence of four years. Penny maintains his innocence.
Judge Maxwell Wiley informed the jurors, composed of seven women and five men, that they were free to focus on the second count. He acknowledged the uncertainty of whether this change would affect their deliberations. The jury will continue their discussions on Monday after expressing their difficulties in reaching a unanimous decision regarding the manslaughter charge, prompting the judge to instruct them to deliberate with open minds.
The events in question occurred on May 1, 2023, when Penny, a former Marine, encountered Neely, a 30-year-old man with a history of homelessness and mental health challenges, who displayed erratic behavior on the subway. Witnesses testified that Neely expressed extreme distress, leading Penny to place him in a chokehold lasting approximately six minutes, which continued even after the train came to a stop. A medical examiner confirmed that Neely died from neck compression as a result of the hold, a conclusion Penny’s legal team has contested.
This trial has highlighted broader issues of racial justice, safety in the subway system, and the ongoing challenges related to homelessness and mental health care in New York City. Penny’s defense team argues that he intended to protect fellow passengers rather than inflict harm.
During the trial, jurors had requested to review various pieces of evidence, including bystander videos and police body camera footage, signaling their dedication to thoroughly analyzing the case. Judge Wiley expressed confidence in their conscientious approach, emphasizing the importance of their responsibility to arrive at a fair verdict.
As the jury prepares to reconvene, there remains hope that through careful deliberation, they may come to a just conclusion. This case continues to resonate with community discussions about safety, mental health, and the complexities of human interactions in moments of crisis.