Closing Arguments Presented in the Trial of Daniel Penny, Charged in NYC Subway Fatality
The defense argued that Penny could not have been aware of Neely’s medical condition. Prosecutors contended that Penny’s use of force exceeded the limits set by law.
NEW YORK CITY—On Dec. 2, lawyers in the trial of Daniel Penny presented their closing arguments, seeking to influence the jury regarding Penny’s guilt on charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide for the death of Jordan Neely on May 1, 2023, aboard a New York subway train.
The defense drew on testimony from Dr. Satish Chundru, as well as segments of testimony from a prosecution witness, medical examiner Dr. Cynthia Harris, to support the argument that Neely died from a sickle cell crisis rather than from strangulation.
Criminal defense lawyer Steve Raiser consistently informed the jury that there was no way for Penny to know, as a complete stranger, that Neely had any unusual medical condition, asserting that Penny acted in defense of other passengers on the uptown F train.
The defense characterized Neely as aggressive and overtly threatening when he boarded the F train that day, a portrayal that went unchallenged by the government lawyers. In fact, Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran openly acknowledged that Neely’s behavior frightened the passengers on the train, far exceeding any unsettling experiences they may have faced on the subway previously.
Yoran spent significant time elucidating under what circumstances the use of deadly force is justified under New York law, asserting that Penny’s actions transcended what was permissible.
Attendance in the courthouse at 100 Centre Street was notably higher than on previous days of the trial, with reporters lining up for hours to be readmitted to the courtroom following lunch.
A High Bar
According to Raiser, any attempt to prosecute Penny for allegedly choking Neely to death imposed a heavy evidential burden on the prosecutors. They could not merely claim that video footage of part of the incident appeared to depict one person choking another to death, especially given the counter-evidence presented by Chundru on the witness stand.
Chundru had testified under oath that Neely’s death resulted from a sickle cell crisis triggered during the stress of the incident, which was evident in the postmortem examination of his body.
Raiser displayed excerpts from the prosecutors’ opening arguments on a screen in the courtroom while addressing the jury, eliciting frequent objections from Yoran, which the judge overruled.
“In their opening statement, [prosecutors] made it very clear that they were referring to a chokehold death—not sickling related to a chokehold, or some ambiguous area in between,” Raiser stated. “They are required to demonstrate a chokehold death that is unrelated to sickling; that is what that statement conveys,” he continued.
Raiser countered the government’s claim that Neely’s sickle cell trait was “largely benign.” “I must disagree because when Mr. Neely experienced a massive sickling crisis, his condition was definitely no longer benign,” Raiser asserted.
At this juncture, Raiser referenced Harris’s testimony, highlighting that Harris—called as a prosecution witness—had conceded under cross-examination that at the 3:09-minute mark of a cellphone video of the incident, Neely might not have merely been unconscious but potentially dying from a sickle cell crisis. Harris had “flat-out admitted” that the sickling indicated by the postmortem examination could have been fatal for Neely, Raiser stated. This assertion was sufficient to create reasonable doubt regarding the government’s claim about Neely’s cause of death.
He reiterated that Penny had acted to protect the passengers and had no awareness of, nor means to prevent, a medical condition in the man he subdued for the police. “There is no plausible scenario where Danny foresaw that Mr. Neely would enter into a sickle cell crisis and pass away,” he claimed.
He reminded the jury of parts of Chundru’s testimony that emphasized the perilous combination of the potent intoxicant K2 and a possible schizophrenic condition influencing Neely.
In closing, Raiser reminded the jury that witnesses with little or nothing to gain from testifying expressed gratitude towards Penny for his actions. “The government is scapegoating a young man who had the courage to stand up the very moment he was needed,” Raiser declared.
The Government’s Case
Yoran highlighted what she asserted were contradictions in witness testimonies about the events on the F train that day, pointing out that the accounts of Neely’s statements differed depending on the testifying witness. Some claimed Neely stated he didn’t care if he died, while others mentioned he encouraged passengers to take his life. Still, other accounts indicated that Neely had directly threatened to kill people on the train.
Regardless of Neely’s statements, Yoran maintained that the law is unequivocal about when and where the use of deadly force is permissible. Upholding a legal system in which deadly force is justifiable only when “absolutely necessary” is vital for “preserving life, even that of an offender,” Yoran emphasized.
Citing testimony from Joseph Caballer, who served alongside Penny in the Marines, Yoran noted that the chokehold is taught in the Marines as a “nonlethal maneuver,” and its proper execution would not cause death. “The idea is to strategically use your arms to compress the veins and arteries on both sides and the front of the neck to halt blood flow to and from the brain. The individual then loses consciousness after around 15 to 20 seconds, and you release them immediately,” she explained.
However, Yoran asserted that Penny maintained the chokehold on Neely while he was prone on the floor for approximately six minutes. She argued that it seemed inconsequential to Penny that Neely was unarmed. Revisiting the definition of justifiable deadly force, Yoran posited that one must hold a reasonable belief that the person perceived as dangerous possesses a weapon and is prepared to use it. The mere theoretical possibility that an individual may have a concealed weapon does not suffice, she contended.
Neely was unarmed, and Penny never claimed to have seen a weapon. “Thus, even if he had been justified in employing deadly physical force when he initially subdued Mr. Neely, he would no longer be permitted to apply deadly physical force to keep Mr. Neely down for the police,” Yoran concluded.
These arguments encapsulated weeks of intensely debated testimony from both defense and government witnesses. The jury is expected to commence deliberations tomorrow after the prosecution concludes its closing arguments.
