The case against Daniel Penny is falling apart like a house of cards

After the defense rested in the Daniel Penny trial on Friday, many observers questioned Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s decision to pursue the case.

During the second-degree manslaughter trial, Bragg’s prosecutors tried to argue that the Marine veteran overreacted and behaved “recklessly” when he restrained Jordan Neely on the F train in May 2023.

However, numerous witnesses for the prosecution, including Penny’s fellow passengers, contradicted this narrative. They described being terrorized by Neely’s behavior and expressed gratitude towards Penny for defending them on that day.

One woman mentioned how scared she was by Neely’s threats and thanked Penny for his actions. Another passenger, a high-school student, shared her fear during the incident and did not hear warnings to Penny to let go of Neely.

Another witness stated that Penny restrained Neely to prevent an attack, contradicting claims of racial motivation in Penny’s actions.

The trial revealed evidence supporting Penny’s rational and courageous actions in a high-pressure situation.

Additionally, forensic pathologist Dr. Satish Chundru testified that Penny’s chokehold did not cause Neely’s death, but rather a combination of factors including sickness, drug effects, and schizophrenia.

Evidence presented during the trial showed that Neely had consumed K2, a drug known to trigger psychosis, at the time of his death.

Chundru’s testimony was further supported by the fact that Neely was still alive when police arrived at the scene.

With substantial evidence indicating Penny’s actions were in defense of himself and others, and other factors contributing to Neely’s death, Bragg’s decision to prosecute appears to be driven by political motives.

Closing arguments are scheduled for Dec. 2, and it’s likely the jury will reach a decision swiftly. It will be Bragg and his team who will need to justify their decision to pursue a weak case to trial.