A New York City judge has dismissed the manslaughter charge against Daniel Penny, who is accused of fatally choking Jordan Neely on a subway train last year. This ruling comes after jurors reported being deadlocked on the top charge, prompting the judge to narrow their focus to the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which carries a maximum sentence of four years.
During the trial, which has sparked significant public discourse on topics such as racial justice and the treatment of homelessness and mental health, jurors were informed they must reach a unanimous verdict on the manslaughter charge before considering the lesser charge. After deliberating for nearly 20 hours over the span of four days, jurors sought guidance from the judge, indicating difficulty in reaching a consensus on the manslaughter charge. In response, Judge Maxwell Wiley provided an “Allen charge,” encouraging jurors to continue deliberating with an open mind.
Penny, a former Marine, has pleaded not guilty, asserting he acted to protect other subway passengers when Neely, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, exhibited erratic behavior. Witness testimony indicated that Neely, a former Michael Jackson impersonator, made disturbing statements before Penny restrained him in a chokehold that reportedly lasted six minutes.
As deliberations continue, Penny’s defense team argued for a mistrial based on the jury’s inability to reach an agreement on the manslaughter charge, fearing that urging them to deliberate further could lead to coercion. They emphasized the conscientious nature of the jury’s approach, as evidenced by the numerous notes requesting clarifications and additional viewing of evidence.
The discussion surrounding this case underscores critical societal issues, spotlighting the need for comprehensive solutions to effectively address homelessness and mental health crises.
In a hopeful view, the ongoing deliberations by the jury could pave the way for a more nuanced understanding of complex social problems and the legal system’s approach to such cases, encouraging dialogue and potential reforms in the way these issues are managed. The jury’s conscientious effort in this high-stakes case reflects the importance of thorough and thoughtful consideration in the pursuit of justice.