Jury Commences Deliberations in Daniel Penny Case

December 4, 2024 TruthUSA

A ruling is anticipated shortly in a highly debated case that has garnered both national and international attention.

NEW YORK CITY—The jury in the trial of ex-Marine Daniel Penny commenced its deliberations on December 3.

The twelve jurors must determine if Penny’s actions were warranted when he placed Jordan Neely, a homeless man with mental health issues, in a headlock on May 1, 2023, and subdued him on the ground, or if those actions amounted to manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, as the prosecution contends.

The trial has captured the interest of many across the nation and the globe, with demonstrators supporting Neely gathering outside the courthouse at 100 Centre Street nearly every morning throughout the proceedings.

Views on the case have been sharply divided from the outset. Some allege that Penny acted with excessive force and recklessness, while others argue he intervened to safeguard innocent passengers on an uptown F train from an aggressive and unpredictable individual, asserting that his actions were entirely justifiable given the failure of law enforcement and mental health professionals to ensure public safety.

Both the defense and prosecution agree that Neely provoked the confrontation that day, as a postmortem examination revealed the presence of synthetic cannabinoids in his system. They concur that Neely’s behavior elicited reasonable and immediate fear for the safety of train passengers.

However, they differ significantly regarding the use of lethal force. Prosecutor Dafna Yoran emphasized that Neely carried no weapons and explained to the jury the circumstances under which deadly force can be deemed justifiable under New York law.

The defense underscored Neely’s background of mental illness and drug use, highlighting explicit threats, along with the fear that numerous witnesses reported experiencing due to Neely’s behavior.

Central to the defense’s argument are the testimonies of forensic pathologist Satish Chundru, who testified that Penny did not cause Neely’s death via chokehold and indicated under oath that Neely succumbed to complications stemming from a sickle cell disorder.

During direct examination by defense attorney Steve Raiser, Chundru explained that Neely’s demise resulted from a combination of factors, including the potent drugs in his system, his schizophrenia, and significantly, a sickle cell trait which was aggravated by the stress of the chokehold, but was not the primary cause.

When under extreme stress, red blood cells in individuals with a sickle cell condition change from their usual round form to a “crescent moon or banana shape,” causing them to adhere to blood vessel walls instead of delivering oxygen to tissue cells, according to Chundru.

He argued that during the chokehold—which alone wouldn’t have been fatal—Neely experienced a sickle cell crisis, leading to his death.

Prior to the jury’s seating on Tuesday morning, defense lawyer Thomas Kenniff informed Judge Maxwell Wiley that Yoran had acted as an “unsworn witness” by interpreting the cell phone footage of the May 2023 incident for the jurors, a role that lawyers are not permitted to occupy. Kenniff argued that her conduct was inappropriate and prejudicial to the jury.

Yoran countered this assertion, and the judge displayed little sympathy towards Kenniff’s claims.

Yoran worked to undermine Chundru’s credibility, questioning his qualifications to discuss the case and alleging he attempted to profit by reaching a biased conclusion.

“Dr. Chundru would not have earned over $90,000 from this single case if he had concluded that Mr. Neely died from a chokehold,” Yoran asserted.

Chundru’s interpretation of Neely’s death contradicted the opinions of experts at the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner, particularly Dr. Cynthia Harris, who testified last month under oath that she believed Penny’s chokehold led to an asphyxial death.

Dr. Harris also criticized Penny for deviating from the training he received in the Marines, which she argued clearly outlined how to apply various types of non-lethal chokes.

Yoran maintained that Penny’s method of restraint involved improper compression of the neck, categorically neither a correctly executed blood or air choke.

“A properly executed blood choke would only compress the veins and arteries along both sides of the neck. A correctly applied air choke would only target the trachea,” Yoran elucidated.

Using cell phone footage of the incident, Yoran demonstrated to the jury that Neely’s neck was not positioned correctly in the crook of Penny’s elbow, as would have been the case in a properly applied choke.

Yoran argued that the prolonged incorrect application of force that lasted for about six minutes ultimately resulted in asphyxiation.

In concluding her statements, Yoran acknowledged that this case presented a challenging decision for the jurors, recognizing that Penny had initially attempted to do the right thing, and noting the difficulty in convicting someone for a death that they did not intend to cause.

She also asserted that the prosecution had met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, demonstrating that Penny “recklessly and needlessly” took Neely’s life.

Source link