NEW YORK — After extensive deliberations spanning more than a week, Daniel Penny was acquitted of criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely, a decision reached by jurors on Monday. The verdict followed heated legal debates and civil unrest outside the courthouse, highlighting a case that has stirred emotions and raised questions about public safety and individual actions.
The jury, which spent over 24 hours across five days in decision-making, initially found themselves deadlocked on a more severe charge of manslaughter last week. This led prosecutors, guided by Judge Maxwell Wiley, to drop the manslaughter charge, which could have led to a 15-year prison sentence for Penny, redirecting the jury to focus on the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide.
The altercation at the heart of the trial took place last year in a subway car, where Penny, a former Marine and current architecture student, was captured on video holding Neely, a homeless man previously known as a Michael Jackson impersonator, in a chokehold. The prosecution argued that Penny’s actions led directly to Neely’s death as he maintained the hold for an extended period, despite Neely’s apparent loss of consciousness.
Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran contended that Penny was aware of the risks involved in such a restraint but chose to continue beyond a reasonable point, failing to acknowledge the inherent danger of his actions. In contrast, Penny’s defense argued that he acted in self-defense and out of a perceived necessity to protect himself and other passengers from what they described as Neely’s erratic behavior.
The defense attorney, Steven Raiser, highlighted that Neely was aggressively confronting passengers, prompting Penny to intervene. Raiser emphasized that there was no intent to kill, depicting Penny’s actions as those of someone trying to maintain control over a volatile situation. He also noted that Neely might have died due to other factors, including a genetic health condition as well as the presence of synthetic marijuana in his system.
Judge Wiley found himself repeatedly addressing motions for a mistrial from the defense, who claimed that the dismissal of the manslaughter charge might pressure the jury towards a compromise verdict on the remaining charge. Despite these concerns, Wiley refused the mistrial and continued with the proceedings, advising the jury to independently assess the less severe charge without prejudice.
The trial was conducted amidst vocal protests outside the courthouse, where groups alternated between cries for justice for Neely and support for Penny. The protests occasionally permeated the courtroom ambiance, although Wiley opted not to highlight this during the jury’s deliberation unless it became significantly disruptive.
This high-profile case not only polarized public opinion but also underscored deep societal issues surrounding homelessness, mental health, and the responsibilities of individuals in public crises. The legal outcomes and the actions on that fateful day will likely prompt further examination of how law and societal expectations intersect in moments of crisis.
The public is reminded that this article was compiled using artificial intelligence by Open AI. Readers should note that the details and contexts provided may contain inaccuracies. Feedback or requests for corrections and retractions can be directed to [email protected].