In New York, the judge overseeing the trial of Daniel Penny, linked to the death of Jordan Neely, has dismissed the second-degree manslaughter charge against him. This decision came after the jury reported twice that they could not reach a unanimous decision. With this charge no longer applicable, the jury can now focus on a lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison, compared to the potential 15-year sentence that would have accompanied a manslaughter conviction.
On Friday morning, the jury communicated their inability to agree on the manslaughter charge, prompting the judge to instruct them to continue deliberations. Later that afternoon, the jury confirmed that they remained deadlocked. Following this, the defense team requested a mistrial, but the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the manslaughter charge was granted.
Penny’s trial, which began deliberations on this case earlier in the week, centers on the incident in which the Marine veteran is accused of causing Neely’s death through a chokehold on a subway last year. He has pleaded not guilty to both the manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide charges.
During the trial, jurors sought to review various pieces of evidence, including cell phone footage, police bodycam recordings, and portions of the defense’s cross-examination with the Medical Examiner, who attributed Neely’s death to neck compression. The jury has also requested clarifications on legal terms such as “recklessness,” “negligence,” and the concept of a “reasonable person.”
Prosecutors argue that while Penny may have intended to restrain Neely for good reasons, he maintained the chokehold for an excessive duration. Conversely, the defense contends that Penny did not apply pressure and merely held Neely down. A defense witness also challenged the Medical Examiner’s findings, asserting that Neely’s death resulted from a combination of factors, including drugs and a sickle cell crisis.
As deliberations are set to continue into a fifth day, this case highlights the complexities surrounding issues of self-defense, mental health, and the responsibilities of individuals in emergency situations. The jury’s careful examination of the evidence reflects a commitment to thoroughness in reaching a verdict.
This trial serves as a pivotal moment for discussions around public safety, mental health awareness, and the use of force, emphasizing the need for communities to address underlying issues with compassion and understanding. With continued deliberations, there remains hope for a resolution that considers the complexities of the circumstances surrounding this tragic event.