After jurors declared themselves deadlocked, the judge in the trial of Daniel Penny, the man charged with manslaughter in the chokehold murder of Jordan Neely on a New York City subway last year, dismissed the charge on Friday.
Jurors will only take into account the lesser accusation of criminally negligent homicide, according to the ruling, which was made at the prosecutors’ request. The maximum penalty for it is four years. Prosecutors’ request was not disclosed to jurors. Penny entered a not guilty plea.
On Monday, the five male and seven female jurors will begin deliberating again. On Friday, they submitted the judge two notes stating that they were unable to reach a unanimous conclusion on the most serious accusation of manslaughter. Judge Maxwell Wiley gave them instructions to continue deliberating after the first note.
Wiley informed the jury before they started deliberating that they would not be permitted to consider the lesser allegation of criminally negligent homicide until they reached a unanimous verdict on the manslaughter charge. They were also told to determine whether Penny’s actions killed Neely and, if so, whether his actions were careless and unwarranted.
On the afternoon of May 1, 2023, Penny, an architecture student and former Marine, was traveling to the gym after class when he came upon an unpredictable Neely on a metro train.
According to witnesses, Neely, a former Michael Jackson lookalike, flung his jacket on the ground and yelled loudly that he was hungry, thirsty, and didn’t care if he died or was sent back to jail when he boarded the train. According to the prosecution, Penny choked him for six minutes. Bystander footage revealed that it went on after the uptown F train reached its next destination, the Broadway-Lafayette station. Neely, 30, had a history of mental illness and was homeless. He had synthetic marijuana, often known as K2, in his bloodstream when he passed away.
The case turned into a focal point for the city’s long-running discussions about racial justice, safety in the subway system, and the city’s shortcomings in dealing with mental illness and homelessness, two issues Neely had faced.
According to Penny and his lawyers, he restrained Neely until the police arrived, not with the intention of hurting him, and he acted to safeguard other passengers.
Thomas Kenniff and Steven Rasier, Penny’s lawyers, have contested the municipal medical examiner’s conclusion that Neely died from compression to his neck as a result of the chokehold.
Kenniff requested that the court declare a mistrial Friday outside the jury room.
Kenniff informed the judge that the jury has been deliberate for around 20 hours over four days in what is, in many respects, a factually straightforward case because the incident was captured on film over the course of minutes. Under these conditions, we fear that the Allen charge will be administered under duress.
When a jury is deadlocked, an Allen charge tells them to keep attempting to reach a unanimous decision.
In disagreement, Manhattan District Attorney’s Office assistant prosecutor Dafna Yoran requested that Wiley present the Allen charge to the jurors. She said that the jury’s note was the first sign of any dispute among the members.
Since the start of the deliberations, the jurors have sent the judge about ten notes. They requested to view the body camera footage of the responding cops, the bystander footage of Penny restraint of Neely, and the video of Penny’s later interview with two police investigators at a precinct. Additionally, they requested that the court read back the criteria of criminal negligence and recklessness, have them in writing, and rehearse a portion of the medical examiner’s evidence.
Wiley disagreed with Kenniff’s assertion that the case was factually straightforward and stated that he felt compelled to read the jurors the Allen charge.
According to him, the notes’ general tone is that this is a very diligent jury that has been approaching the case methodically. Therefore, I believe that it is not time to declare a mistrial. However, it is not appropriate to presume that they have only sent this email because things have become challenging for them.
Wiley informed the jurors that he did not want them to disregard their consciences or their best judgment when they were brought back into the courtroom.
He remarked, “I will once more urge each of you to do everything in your power to reach a just verdict here.”
Following their initial note stating that they were at a standstill, Wiley praised the jurors for their efforts thus far and informed them that it is normal for juries to struggle at first to reach a unanimous decision.
He reminded the jurors, “You’ve been at this for a little over two and a half days,” before instructing them to continue their deliberations. It’s a long time. However, I don’t believe it’s too lengthy considering the case’s factual complexity.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!