The judge presiding over the trial of Daniel Penny, who faces charges for using a fatal chokehold on Jordan Neely last year on a New York City subway, has dismissed a manslaughter charge after jurors reported being deadlocked. This decision, requested by prosecutors, leaves jurors to evaluate only the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which carries a maximum sentence of four years. Penny has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Judge Maxwell Wiley informed the jurors that they were free to deliberate on the lesser charge. The jury, which consists of seven women and five men, will reconvene for further deliberations on Monday. The jurors had expressed their inability to reach a unanimous decision on the manslaughter charge in two notes to the judge on Friday. Following the first note, Wiley issued an Allen charge, encouraging the jury to deliberate further with an open mind.
Prior to the start of deliberations, the judge had instructed the jury that they were required to reach a unanimous verdict on the manslaughter charge before considering the lesser homicide charge. They were directed to determine whether Penny’s actions led to Neely’s death and if he acted recklessly or unjustifiably.
Penny, a former Marine and architecture student, intervened on May 1, 2023, when he encountered Neely, a former Michael Jackson impersonator who was reportedly acting erratically. Witnesses testified that Neely expressed feelings of hunger and despair before Penny placed him in a chokehold, which prosecutors claim lasted for six minutes even after the train arrived at the Broadway-Lafayette station. Neely, who was homeless and had a history of mental illness, had synthetic marijuana in his system when he died.
The case has sparked intense discussions about racial justice, subway safety, and the city’s struggles with homelessness and mental health. Penny’s legal team contends that his actions were intended to protect other passengers rather than to harm Neely.
Defense attorney Thomas Kenniff repeatedly requested the judge to declare a mistrial due to the jury’s inability to agree on the manslaughter charge, arguing that the dismissal of the charge could unduly pressure jurors towards a consensus on the lesser charge. However, the prosecution countered that the jury’s disagreement was only a recent development.
Throughout their deliberations, jurors have submitted numerous notes reflecting their thorough approach to the case, requesting to review video evidence and re-hear testimony, indicating a serious effort to reach an informed verdict.
This case highlights the fragility of public safety and the complexity of issues surrounding homelessness and mental health in urban areas. As the jury continues its discussions, there remains hope for a resolution that not only addresses the immediate legal concerns but also contributes positively to broader social conversations about these critical issues.
In summary, the jury’s shift towards a lesser charge indicates an evolving dynamic in the courtroom, as they confront a case tied to wider societal implications. The situation underscores the importance of thoughtful deliberation and the pursuit of justice in a challenging environment.