In New York, the judge overseeing Daniel Penny’s trial for the death of Jordan Neely has dismissed the second-degree manslaughter charge against him. This decision was made after the jury indicated twice that they could not reach a unanimous verdict on the manslaughter charge. As a result, the jury will now focus on the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which could lead to a maximum sentence of four years in prison. Previously, if convicted of manslaughter, Penny could have faced up to 15 years.
On Friday morning, the jury notified the judge of their inability to reach an agreement on the manslaughter charge, prompting a request for continued deliberation. An afternoon note, however, confirmed their persistent deadlock, leading to the defense’s request for a mistrial. The judge ultimately supported the prosecution’s request to dismiss the manslaughter charge, allowing the jury to proceed with their discussions on criminally negligent homicide.
The jury’s sessions have been ongoing for several days, having initially begun deliberations on Tuesday. They have requested to review various pieces of evidence, including cell phone footage of the incident, bodycam footage from police, and recordings of Penny’s police station interview. At one point, jurors also asked for sections of the judge’s instructions to be re-read, along with legal definitions regarding “recklessness” and “negligence,” as well as clarification on what constitutes a “reasonable person.”
Penny, a 26-year-old Marine veteran, is accused of causing Neely’s death through a chokehold while on a subway. Penny has pleaded not guilty to both manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide charges. The prosecution contends that while Penny may have had good intentions in restraining Neely, he applied the chokehold for an excessive duration. In contrast, the defense asserts that Penny did not exert pressure in the hold and provided expert testimony that challenged the Medical Examiner’s assessment of the cause of death, suggesting that Neely’s passing was influenced by other health issues.
As the jury prepares to continue deliberations on Monday, this case underscores the complexities of criminal law and the challenges juries face in reaching a consensus on serious charges. The outcome could have significant implications, not only for Daniel Penny but also for broader discussions regarding public safety and the use of force in emergency situations.
It’s hopeful to consider that the ongoing deliberations reflect the jury’s diligence and the serious nature of the decision they are facing, aiming to arrive at a fair resolution based on the evidence presented.