In the ongoing trial of Daniel Penny, who is facing charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, the prosecution has accused him of failing to recognize the humanity of Jordan Neely during their closing arguments. Manhattan prosecutor Dafna Yoran emphasized that Penny did not see Neely as a person but rather as a threat that needed to be eliminated. Citing video from Penny’s police interrogation where he referred derogatorily to Neely as a “crackhead,” Yoran argued that such language indicated a dismissive attitude toward a human being’s life, especially considering the potential consequences of his actions. Yoran contended that Penny’s failure to see Neely as a fellow human being underscored the recklessness of his conduct during the incident that led to Neely’s death.
Penny’s defense team, which had previously objected to the prosecution’s racially charged language, argued that the context of the situation necessitated Penny’s actions. Defense attorney Steven Raiser framed Penny as a hero stepping up in a crisis after the “broken system” of New York failed to protect subway riders from Neely, who was described as a 30-year-old homeless man suffering from significant mental health issues and under the influence of drugs. Raiser pointed out that the authorities, including police and medical responders, took crucial time to arrive at the scene, during which Penny acted out of a perceived need to ensure public safety. Raiser highlighted that the circumstances surrounding the incident painted a picture of necessity rather than malice.
The trial evidence revealed Neely’s extensive past, including a history of mental illness, drug abuse, and active warrants for his arrest, which the defense claimed justified Penny’s response. Raiser emphasized that Penny’s handling of the situation was not a textbook chokehold technique; rather, he used a “less aggressive” method he deemed appropriate based on his Marine training. According to the defense, several factors contributed to Neely’s death, including his own health conditions and drug use, and Penny was not the direct cause of death, which they argued absolved him of culpability.
In contrast, forensic expert testimony presented by the defense asserted that Neely’s death resulted from a combination of his drug use and physical exertion during the struggle rather than solely from the chokehold Penny applied. The defense indicated that the actions taken by Penny could have reasonably been seen as an attempt to restrain rather than harm, citing his efforts to ease the pressure on Neely whenever he stopped resisting. This argument aimed to sow doubt regarding the prosecution’s assertion that Penny’s actions were both reckless and unlawful, which is crucial to establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
With closing arguments completed, both sides rested their cases, leaving the jury to deliberate on the evidence presented. During her closing, Yoran reiterated that Neely’s threatening behavior did not justify the level of force used by Penny, asserting that he could have restrained Neely without resorting to a deadly chokehold. She reminded jurors that Penny was aware of the potential gravity of the situation and claimed he displayed a lack of care for Neely’s life by continuing to apply force despite suggestions from bystanders to stop. This assertion highlighted a central tenet of the trial: whether Penny acted within the bounds of reasonable self-defense or public safety or crossed a line into recklessness.
As deliberations began, it was noted that the case raises significant questions about the balance of self-defense, public safety, and the legal system’s response to mental health crises, particularly regarding how individuals perceive threats in vulnerable urban environments. The jury was tasked with weighing whether Penny’s actions constituted a reasonable response to an immediate threat or whether they reflected a dangerous misuse of force. As the jurors deliberated, they were reminded of the severe potential consequences for Penny if found guilty, including a maximum sentence of 15 years. The complexity of the case showcases larger societal issues surrounding mental illness, homelessness, and public safety, reflecting the multifaceted challenges faced by individuals and communities alike.
