In a closely watched trial, jurors could not reach an agreement on a manslaughter charge against Daniel Penny, a Marine veteran accused of killing Jordan Neely in a Manhattan subway incident.
Fox News reported that the deadlock compelled the judge to drop the more severe charge and ask them to consider the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, which they will deliberate on Monday.
Daniel Penny, 26, had been facing serious legal charges after an altercation on a New York City subway resulted in the death of Jordan Neely. The incident, marked by chaos as Neely allegedly threatened passengers, prompted Penny's controversial intervention.
The jurors in the trial faced a complex decision-making process, returning to deliberations for a fourth consecutive day. Despite significant effort, they were unable to deliver a unanimous decision regarding the allegation of recklessness required for a manslaughter conviction.
During deliberations, a message was sent to the court around 11 a.m. The jury continued their discussions but remained at an impasse as the afternoon progressed. The repeated deadlock prompted Assistant Manhattan District Attorney to request that the judge dismiss the more severe charge.
Judge Maxwell Wiley, overseeing the trial, agreed with the prosecution's request. This allowed the jury to now focus on the less severe charge of criminally negligent homicide, which carries a maximum sentence of four years imprisonment.
Judge Wiley explained that the dismissal of the primary charge allowed jurors to shift attention to the remaining charge. He praised the jury for their perseverance, emphasizing their role's importance despite the case's complexities.
"Manslaughter in the second degree is dismissed. What that means is you are now free to consider count two. Whether that makes any difference, I have no idea," stated Judge Wiley. "You’ve been a very good jury, and there’s no reason to think that any other jury in a future trial will be any more intelligent or fair than you are."
Defense attorney Steven Raiser remarked on the jury's careful consideration and their previous request for explanations on the justification standard, underscoring the trial's thoroughness.
The incident has underscored heightened concerns about transit safety, as public fears of subway violence continue to rise. When the altercation happened, Neely reportedly threatened fellow commuters during a mental health episode, complicating public perception of the event.
Penny contends that his actions on the subway were a response to these dangers, staying at the scene to cooperate with law enforcement following the tragic occurrence. Witnesses provided varying testimonies about the altercation, adding layers to the trial's complexity.
Jordan Neely's background also became a focal point, as it was revealed he had an active arrest warrant and a lengthy criminal history, including prior assaults. The defense has argued that Neely's behavior justified Penny's response, while the prosecution contends otherwise.
Given the impasse, the trial will resume on Monday with jurors considering whether Daniel Penny's actions amount to criminally negligent homicide. Legal experts and observers watch closely as the case continues to unfold in the courtroom.
There was an attempt from the defense team to have a mistrial declared but Judge Wiley, aiming for further deliberation, denied the request. The complexity of the evidence is one factor influencing this trial's extension.
Ultimately, the trial of Daniel Penny showcases the challenges in prosecuting cases involving self-defense claims amid mental health issues, requiring nuanced consideration. As deliberations proceed, the focus remains on whether Penny's decisions constitute negligence under the law.
