A New York judge has dismissed the manslaughter charge against U.S. Marine Corps veteran Daniel Penny, allowing the jury to focus on a lesser charge when deliberations resume on Monday. The decision followed a request by prosecutors, which sparked debate in the courtroom.
BREAKING: Daniel Penny manslaughter charge dismissed as jury breaks for weekend. pic.twitter.com/s9SA5nJebN
— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 6, 2024
“I’ll take a chance and grant the people’s application,” Judge Maxwell Wiley said, referencing the prosecution’s move to drop the manslaughter charge. He added, “Normally, the distinction between the two counts is very clear. The justification adds another element to it which is at play here.” Penny’s attorney strongly opposed the motion, warning it could set a troubling precedent.
“This has never been done before,” Penny’s lawyer argued. “It would encourage prosecutors to over-charge in the grand jury, with the option of withdrawing if hung, under coercion.”
The Post Millennial reports that the anonymous jurors will deliberate the lesser, second charge of criminally negligent homicide on Monday:
During their nearly 20 hours of deliberations so far, the jurors have requested to watch the cell phone and police bodycam footage of the May 2023 incident in which Penny placed Jordan Neely into a chokehold on a subway train car. The jurors also wanted to hear a readback of the defense’s cross-examination of Dr. Cynthia Harris, the New York City Medical Examiner who performed Neely’s autopsy and ruled his cause of death to be compression of the neck.
Jurors additionally asked for parts of the judge’s instructions to be re-read, as well as the legal definitions of “recklessness” and “negligence.”
After returning to deliberations Friday, the jurors sent a note requesting to hear clarification as to the term “reasonableness,” to which the judge instructed them that “Reasonableness is up to you to decide. What would a reasonable person do in this situation? He must have honestly believed Jordan Neely was going to use physical force against him or someone else.”
The case centers on an incident aboard a New York City subway train last year. Penny subdued Neely, a homeless man with a long history of arrests, after Neely reportedly threatened passengers’ lives. Penny’s actions have drawn praise as well as criticism, almost exclusively from the far-left.
While many passengers on the train commended Penny’s intervention, prominent voices on the left and activist groups have condemned his actions. Initially, New York City Mayor Eric Adams spoke positively about Penny’s response, though his stance shifted amid growing public outcry.
The case has also attracted high-profile commentary. John Walsh, creator of America’s Most Wanted, called the charges against Penny a “travesty.” Speaking on Fox News, Walsh described Penny as a “hero” who acted courageously in a dangerous situation.
🚨JOHN WALSH: "The Daniel Penny trial is the biggest travesty in the history of this country. That guy is a hero. There were 8 murders on the subway this year, up 60% and here we have a marine risking their life to jump on a mentally ill person who was arrested 27 times.
— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) December 5, 2024
The… pic.twitter.com/cETYql1FRk
“There were eight murders on the subway this year, up 60%, and here we have a Marine risking their life to jump on a mentally ill person who was arrested 27 times,” Walsh said. He criticized systemic failures, adding, “We’re the richest, most powerful country on the planet. We couldn’t get this guy help. And then they try to turn it into a race thing.”
This is the person prosecuting Daniel Penny pic.twitter.com/48shi2L8ej
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 6, 2024
Walsh also condemned the portrayal of the case by Manhattan prosecutors, particularly Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran, who suggested race played a role in Neely’s death. Walsh called for greater accountability from the DA’s office, emphasizing the impact on everyday subway riders.
“My son lives in Brooklyn, and he says, ‘Dad, those of us that can afford Uber do it, but the people on the subway are people who can’t,’” Walsh added. “The dishwashers and the people coming into the city … it’s a horrible thing what the city of New York is doing to this guy.”
As deliberations continue, the case remains a flashpoint in ongoing debates about public safety, mental health resources and left-wing legal theories.
READ NEXT: Tensions Reach Boiling Point: US Military Obliterates Russian Armor
Mmm, as someone who was a juror on a murder trial where similarly we had to choose between several possibilities, in our case everything from involuntary manslaughter to first degree murder, found a couple of things about the deliberations in this case noteworthy.
1. It appears that the jury was not given a written copy of the jury instructions. In cases like this that makes it very hard on the jury. In our case, we had 87 pages of legal instructions, single spaced. No one can remember all of that. So, whenever we were unsure of the legal instructions or someone remembered them differently, we went back to the source, and it happened several times. In this case, it appears that every time this happens, they have to submit a request to the judge, wait for a reply and then a court reporter to come in and read the transcript. Very cumbersome.
2. Juries conduct deliberations any way they see fit. While it didn’t start that way, we reached a point where we decided to work through the criteria from the bottom up. Involuntary manslaughter has legal criteria that has to be met. Voluntary manslaughter requires all the elements of involuntary manslaughter plus one or more additional items. There was a lot of wisdom in going about it this way. When we lacked consensus on an element, we could laser in on that element knowing we had agreement on everything else to that point. If we all agreed a required element was not met, we had our verdict. In this case it appears the jury has focused all its energy to date on the charge at the top of the scale. The one with the most elements to prove and get agreement upon.