Marine veteran Daniel Penny's defense team emerges from a high-profile trial with plans that could shake the New York legal establishment.
According to Fox News, Penny's attorneys are contemplating a malicious prosecution lawsuit against District Attorney Alvin Bragg and the medical examiner's office following Penny's acquittal in the Jordan Neely subway chokehold case.
The potential legal action stems from allegations of collusion between the DA's office and the medical examiner. Defense attorney Steven Raiser has pointed to what he describes as ethical breaches in the case's handling, suggesting a coordinated effort against his client from the investigation's outset.
The development follows Penny's acquittal on charges of criminally negligent homicide, which came after prosecutors dropped the more serious second-degree manslaughter charge. The prosecution's strategy shift occurred when jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict on two separate occasions. This tactical adjustment ultimately proved unsuccessful as the jury delivered a not-guilty verdict on Monday.
Defense attorney Raiser articulated his team's perspective on the prosecution's approach during the trial. He emphasized the apparent determination to secure a conviction despite the evidence presented. The prosecution's decision to reduce charges mid-trial has become a focal point in the defense's criticism of the case's handling.
Raiser shared his observations about the prosecution's tactics, stating:
Just like Danny said in his interview, it was like they wanted to try and get him on something. They knew they weren't going to be able to get him, so they had to get rid of that top count in order to get to that second count, just in hopes that maybe they could pull out a win here, and they were unsuccessful, thank God.
The defense team's allegations extend beyond the courtroom proceedings into the realm of institutional relationships. They specifically point to the connection between Mayor Adams and DA Bragg, suggesting their shared political affiliation influenced the case's trajectory. This argument forms a central component of their potential malicious prosecution claim.
The role of the medical examiner's office has come under particular scrutiny. Raiser has explicitly questioned the speed and nature of their involvement, suggesting their actions were driven by political considerations rather than standard protocol. The defense team argues that this alleged coordination between offices compromised the investigation's integrity.
The timing and methodology of the medical examination have become key points of contention. The defense team suggests that standard procedures were accelerated or modified to support the prosecution's narrative. These allegations form part of the broader argument about institutional bias against their client.
Penny's post-trial stance remains resolute. In a recent interview, the Marine veteran defended his actions on the subway, expressing that he would have struggled with his conscience had he not intervened when he perceived a threat to other passengers. This perspective offers insight into the mindset that will likely influence any future legal proceedings.
The case has highlighted significant questions about the intersection of law enforcement, political influence, and justice in New York City. The defense team's planned legal action could potentially expose the internal workings of the city's criminal justice system, particularly regarding high-profile cases.
Daniel Penny's defense team, led by attorney Steven Raiser, is preparing to challenge what they view as systematic misconduct in his prosecution. Their planned lawsuit targets District Attorney Alvin Bragg and the medical examiner's office, alleging coordinated efforts to secure a conviction despite insufficient evidence.
The upcoming legal battle will focus on the alleged collusion between city officials and the prosecution's handling of the case, particularly regarding the medical examination process and the decision to modify charges during the trial. This development represents a significant shift from Penny's defensive position to an offensive legal strategy that could impact future high-profile cases in New York City's criminal justice system.
