Daniel Penny Jury Stalls Over Key Manslaughter Charge in Jordan Neely Case
The jury in the high-profile trial of Daniel Penny has informed Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Maxwell Wiley that it cannot reach a unanimous verdict on the most serious charge of second-degree manslaughter. Justice Wiley has instructed jurors to resume deliberations, emphasizing that they cannot consider the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide unless they unanimously acquit Penny of manslaughter.
Penny, a 26-year-old Marine veteran, is accused of recklessly causing the death of Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man, during a confrontation on a Manhattan subway in May 2023. Neely, reportedly behaving erratically and making threats, died after Penny restrained him in a chokehold. If convicted, Penny faces up to 15 years in prison for manslaughter and up to four years for negligent homicide.
Prosecutors and Defense Clash Over Jury Instructions
Assistant District Attorney Yoran pushed back against the judge’s directive, arguing that jurors should be allowed to consider the second charge regardless of their verdict on the first. “It would be a crazy result to have a hung jury just because they’re not allowed to move on to the second count,” Yoran stated.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team has faced intense public scrutiny for bringing charges against Penny. Sources indicate that representatives from the DA’s office have contacted news outlets to influence coverage, emphasizing that Penny might not face significant prison time even if found guilty, as there is no mandatory minimum sentence for either charge.
Defense attorneys have criticized this approach, accusing prosecutors of attempting to manipulate media narratives to sway jury perceptions. They maintain that Penny acted in self-defense to protect subway passengers from a man who, witnesses say, shouted, “Someone’s going to die today!” before boarding the train.
Key Legal and Evidentiary Disputes
The case hinges on whether Penny acted recklessly by maintaining the chokehold after other passengers had exited the train. Prosecutors argue that Penny’s actions went too far, emphasizing that no witnesses testified to Neely physically assaulting or directly threatening anyone.
The defense counters by highlighting the lack of conclusive evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the chokehold caused Neely’s death. They stress that Neely, who had a history of mental illness, presented a credible threat to passengers on the train.
Potential Outcomes and Mistrial Risks
The jury’s inability to reach a verdict raises the possibility of a mistrial, which would leave the decision to retry the case in the hands of prosecutors. If deliberations remain deadlocked, Justice Wiley may issue an “Allen” charge, instructing jurors to revisit their positions in hopes of reaching a consensus.
This trial has drawn national attention, polarizing public opinion on Penny’s actions while spotlighting broader issues of mental health, homelessness, and public safety on urban transit systems.
👉 Stay informed with real-time updates and in-depth analysis at NewsLink7.com. Fact-checked news that matters. Follow us 24/7, 365 days. There are no sides, just the truth. Explore more stories and stay ahead with NewsLink7.com.