The judge presiding over the trial of Daniel Penny, accused of causing the death of Jordan Neely through a chokehold last year on a New York City subway, has dismissed the manslaughter charge after jurors reported being deadlocked. As a result, the jury can now concentrate solely on the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which carries a maximum penalty of four years. The jury, comprised of seven women and five men, will resume their deliberations on Monday, following their indication that they could not reach a consensus regarding the manslaughter charge.
The proceedings saw jurors send two notes to the judge, expressing their struggle to agree on the more serious charge. After the first note, Judge Maxwell Wiley issued an Allen charge, encouraging the jury to keep an open mind in hopes of reaching a unanimous verdict. Initially, the jurors were instructed that they must first reach an agreement on the manslaughter charge before considering criminally negligent homicide.
Daniel Penny, a 26-year-old former Marine, encountered Neely, a homeless man with a history of mental illness, on May 1, 2023. Neely had been acting erratically, and witnesses reported him expressing distress. Penny placed Neely in a chokehold that lasted approximately six minutes, a fact contested by Penny’s defense team, which maintains that he intended to restrain Neely to protect other passengers and not to cause harm.
The case has significantly raised questions regarding racial justice and public safety in New York’s subway system, as well as the broader societal issues surrounding homelessness and mental health, as highlighted by Neely’s struggles. Outside the jury’s presence, Penny’s attorney, Thomas Kenniff, sought to declare a mistrial when it became apparent that the jury could not come to an agreement on the manslaughter charge, arguing that the court’s actions pressured jurors into a decision regarding the lesser charge.
Despite the complexities of the case, Judge Wiley noted the jury’s conscientiousness and emphasized the importance of reaching a fair verdict, motivating them to carefully consider all aspects before concluding their deliberations.
This trial spotlights ongoing societal challenges related to mental health and homelessness, which remain pressing issues in urban environments. As such, it is an opportunity for deeper discussions on how communities can better support those in need and conveys the significance of carefully navigated judicial processes in addressing such sensitive subjects.
In conclusion, while the case continues to unfold, it highlights critical conversations around justice, mental health, and community responsibility. It is hoped that the outcome will lead to constructive dialogues and potential solutions for the issues surrounding individuals experiencing homelessness and mental health crises.