Questions the jury asked before acquitting Daniel Penny in the subway chokehold death

(NEW YORK) — A Manhattan jury found Daniel Penny not guilty in the chokehold death of Jordan Neely, following nearly a week of deliberations.

Penny, a former Marine and architecture student, was initially charged with manslaughter and negligent homicide. Prosecutors alleged that Penny killed Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man who had previously been a Michael Jackson impersonator, when he placed him in a six-minute-long chokehold on a subway car in May 2023, holding Neely for at least 51 seconds after his body went limp. The city’s medical examiner concluded Penny’s chokehold killed Neely.

The defense told jurors that Penny “acted to save” subway passengers from a “violent and desperate” Neely, who was acting erratically, and that Penny continued to hold on because he feared Neely would break free, though he didn’t intend to kill Neely. The defense argued Neely died from a genetic condition and the synthetic marijuana found in his system.

The jury deliberated for more than 24 hours across five days before acquitting Penny of criminally negligent homicide on Monday. They were previously deadlocked on the more serious charge of second-degree manslaughter, which Judge Maxwell Wiley dismissed on Friday at the request of prosecutors.

Penny pleaded not guilty to both charges.

The jury submitted several questions to the court during the course of their deliberations, giving some insight into their thinking.

Day 1

A little more than an hour after beginning deliberations, the jury on Tuesday asked for a readback of a portion of the judge’s instructions on the law. The jury was interested in the part about justified use of force.

Day 2

The jury asked to see key videos shown during the trial — police body camera footage, Penny’s interrogation video and a bystander’s video on Wednesday.

Later that day, the jury asked for a readback of testimony. The jury wanted to hear part of the cross-examination of the city medical examiner who concluded Penny’s chokehold killed Neely. Dr. Cynthia Harris, who was the final witness for the prosecution during the trial, determined that Neely died from compression to the neck.

During an intense cross-examination, Harris had pushed back against the defense suggestion that the public sentiment surrounding the trial influenced her conclusion that “there are no alternative reasonable explanations” for Neely’s death other than Penny’s chokehold.

“No toxicological result imaginable was going to change my opinion,” she testified.

Day 3

The jury heard more testimony read back from the cross-examination of Harris.

The jury subsequently requested to see two bystander videos capturing the moments when Penny placed Neely in a chokehold. The jury had already requested one of the two bystander videos the previous day.

Wiley allowed the jury to access a laptop with the videos so they could watch the requested videos as many times as they’d like.

Later that day, the jury requested the definitions of criminal negligence and recklessness.

“We the jury request that Judge Wiley read the definition of recklessness and negligence. Please read it more than once,” the note read. “Could the jury have the definitions in writing?”

The jury was considering two counts – second-degree manslaughter, which carries a maximum 15-year sentence, and criminally negligent homicide, which has a four-year maximum. To convict Penny of manslaughter, the jury must be convinced Penny acted recklessly and grossly deviated from how a reasonable person would behave knowing the risk his conduct posed.

Day 4

The jury told the judge on Friday they were “unable to come to a unanimous vote” on whether Penny committed manslaughter.

“We the jury request instructions from Judge Wiley. At this time, we are unable to come to a unanimous vote on court one,” the note said.

The verdict form asked the jury to decide the first count — second-degree manslaughter — before potentially moving to the second count of criminally negligent homicide. Only if they found Penny not guilty on the first count could they consider the second count.

About 20 minutes after the judge encouraged them to continue deliberating despite their deadlock, the jury sent back another note requesting more information about the term “reasonable person” in their instructions.

“Ultimately what a reasonable person is up to you to decide,” Wiley told the jury in response to their note, referring them to a two-part test in jury instruction.

“Would a reasonable person have had the same honestly held belief as the defendant given the circumstances and what the defendant knew at that time?” Wiley asked, referring to the second part of the test.

Several hours later, Wiley dismissed the top charge of second-degree manslaughter at the request of prosecutors.

The judge encouraged the jury to continue deliberating on Monday the lesser charge of whether Penny committed criminally negligent homicide.

Day 5

The jury announced Monday morning they had reached a unanimous decision on count two — finding Penny not guilty of criminally negligent homicide.

The courtroom broke out in a mix of cheers, clapping, and jeers as soon as the verdict was read.

Neely’s father cursed in anger shortly after the verdict and was forcibly removed from the courtroom by a court officer. Others in the gallery shouted, and one woman broke down in tears.

Penny, walking out of the courtroom, flashed a brief smile before returning to his stone-faced demeanor. His lawyers embraced one another while seated at the counsel table.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office prosecuted the case, thanked the jury and vowed to respect their verdict.

“The jury has now spoken. At the Manhattan D.A.’s Office we deeply respect the jury process and we respect their verdict,” he said in a statement.