New York – Closing arguments unfolded on Monday in the high-profile trial of Daniel Penny, a Marine veteran who is accused of fatally choking Jordan Neely, a street performer known for his Michael Jackson impersonations, on a New York subway last year. Penny faces charges of second-degree manslaughter and negligent homicide, levied by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
The incident, which occurred on a northbound F-train, has catalyzed a mixture of national attention and local uproar, centered around issues of safety, mental health, and vigilante justice. Neely, who was frequently seen performing in places like Times Square, died shortly after the confrontation, leading to Penny’s arrest and subsequent trial.
Defense attorney Steven Raiser vigorously argued that Penny acted out of a sense of protection for himself and other passengers. He detailed the scenario where Neely allegedly appeared aggressive and desperate, which, according to some witness accounts, included him reaching towards other riders in a threatening manner. Raiser appealed to the jury to consider Penny’s military training and instincts in that high-pressure moment, asserting that Penny did not know whether Neely was armed.
The defense also presented a complex medical theory suggesting that Neely’s death was primarily caused by a “sickle cell crisis” exacerbated by factors such as synthetic drug use and physical exertion during the altercation, rather than by the chokehold itself. Raiser emphasized that this crisis, which leads to oxygen-deprivation in vital tissues, was unforeseeable by Penny at the time of the incident.
Conversely, the prosecution, represented by Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran, painted a different picture. They argued that Penny’s response was excessively forceful and unnecessary. Yoran pointed out that Penny maintained the chokehold for approximately six minutes, well beyond the point where Neely appeared to lose consciousness, as seen in courtroom video evidence. This, according to Yoran, showed a disregard for Neely’s life and safety.
The courtroom also saw testimonies about the type of chokehold used, with Penny’s military trainer explaining that it was hard to ascertain from the video whether Penny had applied continuous pressure throughout the struggle. This aligns with the defense’ argument that the chokehold was not intended to be lethal.
Addressing potential biases, Yoran pointed out inconsistencies in Penny’s statement to the police post-incident, where he seemed uncertain about Neely’s potential to cause harm. She argued that this undermined the defense’s portrayal of Neely as a clear and present danger.
The case has broader societal implications, as highlighted by Raiser, who criticized the systemic failures in addressing mental health and homelessness in the city. He described the event as a tragic outcome of these larger systemic issues, rather than the sole responsibility of Penny.
As the trial nears its conclusion, the jury is left to decide whether Penny’s actions fall within the bounds of reasonable self-defense and protection of others, or if they veer into reckless disregard for human life, under the mantle of excessive force.
This article was automatically generated. The people, facts, and circumstances described may be inaccurate. Any requests for retraction or corrections can be sent to [email protected].