In a significant development in the trial of Daniel Penny, who is accused of fatally choking Jordan Neely in a New York City subway incident, a judge dismissed the manslaughter charge on Friday after jurors reported being deadlocked. The jury will now focus on the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which could result in a maximum sentence of four years if Penny is convicted. Penny has pleaded not guilty to the allegations.
Judge Maxwell Wiley instructed the jurors, consisting of seven women and five men, to resume their deliberations on Monday. Their decision followed two notes sent to the judge indicating they could not reach a unanimous decision on the manslaughter charge. Judge Wiley had previously provided the jurors with an Allen charge, encouraging them to deliberate further in an effort to reach a consensus.
Before the jury began deliberating, Judge Wiley emphasized the need for a unanimous decision on the manslaughter charge. He instructed the jury to first determine whether Penny’s actions directly caused Neely’s death and if those actions were reckless and unjustified.
The incident that led to this trial occurred on May 1, 2023, when Penny, a 26-year-old former Marine and architecture student, encountered Neely, a 30-year-old former Michael Jackson impersonator, onboard a subway train. Witness accounts describe Neely as expressing distress and agitation, which prompted Penny to place him in a chokehold for approximately six minutes, a move that ultimately led to Neely’s death, as determined by a medical examiner’s report.
This case has sparked widespread public discussion regarding issues of racial justice, public safety in the subway system, and the challenges of addressing homelessness and mental health issues, which Neely had faced throughout his life.
Penny’s defense maintains that he acted out of concern for the safety of other passengers and did not intend to harm Neely. This sentiment was echoed in Penny’s lawyer’s comments regarding the dismissal of the manslaughter charge, expressing concern that the judge’s actions could pressure jurors into a unanimous decision on the lesser charge.
Throughout the trial, jurors have actively engaged with various pieces of evidence, requesting to review bystander videos and testimony from the medical examiner, which indicates their diligence and commitment to reaching an informed verdict.
The atmosphere in the courtroom displayed a commitment to justice, with Judge Wiley reminding jurors of the importance of their role and urging them to make every effort to arrive at a just verdict while ensuring they do not compromise their moral beliefs in the process.
While this decision may have created tensions and uncertainty, it also emphasizes the complexity of the legal process and the intricacies involved in understanding the nuances of such cases. As the jury moves forward, there remains hope that a fair resolution will be reached, reflecting the serious nature of the issues at hand while prioritizing justice for both Neely and Penny.