A jury has acquitted Daniel Penny of criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man who was placed in a chokehold on a subway train last year. After more than 24 hours of deliberation over five days, the jury determined that Penny, a former Marine, did not act with criminal negligence when he restrained Neely, who was reportedly behaving erratically at the time.
The case stemmed from an incident in May 2023, when Penny held Neely in a chokehold for approximately six minutes, continuing for more than 50 seconds even after Neely’s body went limp. Prosecutors contended that Penny’s actions directly led to Neely’s death and emphasized that he failed to recognize Neely’s humanity. In contrast, the defense argued that Neely’s death was unrelated to Penny’s actions and might have resulted from a genetic condition combined with substances found in his system.
During the trial, the jury initially struggled to reach a unanimous decision on a more serious manslaughter charge, prompting them to pivot to consider the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which carries a maximum sentence of four years. Throughout the proceedings, Penny maintained his innocence and asserted that his actions were aimed at protecting other subway passengers from what he described as a dangerous situation.
Judge Maxwell Wiley dismissed the manslaughter charge, despite requests from Penny’s defense for a mistrial which were denied. In addressing the jury, Wiley reminded them that they were not being directed towards a specific verdict, aiming to ensure an impartial consideration of the case amidst external protests surrounding the trial.
This verdict has sparked mixed reactions outside the courthouse, with groups of protesters voicing calls for justice for Neely. The demonstration highlighted the deep community divisions and emotions surrounding the trial and its implications for public safety and accountability.
Overall, this case reflects ongoing societal issues regarding mental health, homelessness, and the use of force. While the jury’s decision may come as a relief to some, it serves as a reminder of the complexities present in similar encounters. Sustained discussions about how to address the challenges faced by individuals experiencing homelessness and mental health crises are essential in the wake of this ruling.
In a hopeful light, this outcome may encourage a more significant conversation about the societal responsibilities towards vulnerable populations and the importance of addressing mental health support and intervention strategies that could prevent such tragedies in the future.