In a highly publicized trial, a New York City jury has hit a stalemate regarding the manslaughter charge against former U.S. Marine Daniel Penny for the chokehold death of Jordan Neely on a subway.
The case, which hinges on video evidence showing the fatal confrontation, has seen the jury divided, prompting the judge to intervene, New York Post reported.
At the heart of this trial are the events that transpired in May 2023 in a Manhattan subway, where Penny was videotaped applying a chokehold to Neely, resulting in his death. The confrontation, which has sparked considerable public interest and scrutiny, is being tried at the Manhattan Criminal Court.
The complexity of the case is evident from the two notes sent by the jury to the court, indicating their challenges in reaching a unanimous decision on the manslaughter charge. This deadlock led Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Maxwell Wiley to issue an "Allen" charge, a directive used by judges to encourage deadlocked juries to continue deliberations and strive for a verdict.
Justice Wiley underscored the importance of an open mind and flexibility among jurors.
"Resume your deliberations with an open mind," advised Wiley. "I’m not asking any of you to violate your conscience, but be flexible. Be willing to change your position if the discussion warrants."
This judicial push for consensus reflects the high stakes and divided opinions surrounding the case. The jurors, upon resuming deliberations, are also faced with considering a lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide as suggested by Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran if they remain deadlocked on the manslaughter charge.
Throughout the trial, the prosecution emphasized the absence of any threat or physical contact by Neely towards others before the incident; Neely was found only with a muffin. Defense attorneys, however, argue that Penny acted in self-defense, believing he was protecting himself and other passengers from a potential threat.
Penny's defense further contends that the chokehold was not directly responsible for Neely’s death, a point that remains central to their argument. This claim adds another layer of complexity to the trial, challenging the prosecution's assertion about the lethal effect of the chokehold captured by witness Juan Vazquez through his phone's camera.
The footage itself became a crucial piece of evidence, repeatedly shown during the trial, detailing the interactions and final moments of the confrontation between Penny and Neely. The video's role in the courtroom underscores the impact of bystander media in modern legal contexts.
If the jury finds Penny guilty of manslaughter, he faces up to 15 years in prison. The alternative, criminally negligent homicide, carries a maximum penalty of four years, presenting a significantly different potential outcome for Penny.
The trial extends beyond the immediate details of the case, touching on broader issues of public safety, the use of force, and the responsibilities of individuals in highly charged situations. ADA Yoran’s comment in court highlighted the tension of a potentially unresolved jury: "It would be a crazy result to have a hung jury just because they can’t move on to the second count."
As the jury continues deliberating, the city watches closely. The decision will likely reverberate through legal circles and beyond, affecting public opinion on justice and self-defense laws.
Justice Wiley, who remains pivotal in guiding the jury towards a verdict, stresses the importance of individual jurors’ interpretation of reasonableness: "Ultimately what a reasonable person is, is up to you to decide. Hope that helps," he remarked, illustrating the subjective nature of legal judgments in cases involving subjective perceptions of threat and defense.
