When a Jury Can’t Decide: The Daniel Penny Manslaughter Impasse

Shortly after this piece was posted, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office filed a motion to dismiss the charge of Manslaughter in the Daniel Penny trial. Jury deliberation will resume on Monday where they will consider the charge of Criminally Negligent Homicide.

UPDATE: After reconvening for only a short time on Monday, December 9, 2024, the jury found Daniel Penny not guilty of criminally negligent homicide.

The trial of Daniel Penny, charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the chokehold death of Jordan Neely, raises critical questions about public safety, self-defense, and the role of law enforcement in addressing mental health crises. Today, jurors informed the presiding judge that they are deadlocked on the manslaughter charge against Penny, which many media outlets had previously speculated. The judge gave the jury an Allen charge, an instruction that encourages them to make every possible effort to reach a unanimous verdict.

On May 1, 2023, Neely, a homeless man with a history of mental illness, boarded a train in Manhattan and began shouting erratically. Witnesses reported that Neely yelled about being hungry, tired, and willing to go to prison, stating, “Someone is going to die today.” Penny, a Marine veteran, intervened, placing Neely in a chokehold for approximately six minutes. Neely was pronounced dead at the scene, and the medical examiner ruled his death a homicide caused by “compression of the neck.”

Over the past few days, jurors have requested to view two bystander videos capturing the chokehold incident, suggesting that these visuals are central to their analysis. They also asked for the definitions of “criminal negligence” and “recklessness,” signaling their focus on Penny’s state of mind and whether his actions meet the legal criteria for a criminal charge. Today, after being instructed to continue deliberations, the jury asked for clarification on the definition of a “reasonable” person as they debate Penny’s actions.

Criminal negligence refers to a failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk, constituting a significant deviation from how a reasonable person would act. Recklessness, by contrast, involves a conscious disregard of such risks. These distinctions are pivotal in determining whether Penny’s actions were a reasonable response to Neely’s behavior or an unjustifiable overstep.

Penny’s legal team argues that he acted in self-defense and in defense of the other passengers. Witnesses testified that Neely’s erratic and threatening behavior caused widespread fear on the subway car. In his closing arguments, Penny’s attorney framed his client as a protector in a moment of crisis, stating he “acted when others could not.”

The prosecution argues that Penny’s actions were reckless and unnecessary. They contend that Neely was unarmed and did not physically attack anyone, making the prolonged chokehold an excessive response. Prosecutors have pointed to the bystander videos as evidence that Penny maintained the chokehold after Neely stopped struggling, ultimately causing his death.

The case has sparked widespread debate and protests reflecting broader societal tensions around public safety, homelessness, mental illness, and race, underscoring systemic failures in addressing these issues. Neely had a lengthy history of arrests and mental health crises, and his death has become a rallying point for advocates who argue that such tragedies result from a system that criminalizes homelessness and mental illness rather than providing meaningful support.

Penny’s supporters view him as a good Samaritan who acted courageously in a moment of perceived danger. They argue that the charges against him discourage bystanders from intervening in similar situations, potentially leaving public spaces less safe.

As the jury continues its deliberations, the outcome of Penny’s trial will have significant implications—not only for the individuals involved, but also for society’s broader understanding of self-defense, accountability, and compassion in moments of crisis. Whether he is acquitted, found guilty, or a mistrial is declared, the case serves as a stark reminder of the need for solutions that address mental health crises to quell everyday citizens’ fears and ensure they do not feel forced to resort to violence.

The jury’s careful review of the evidence and legal definitions reflects the weight of their decision. Whatever the verdict, the trial will leave lasting questions about the balance between individual rights, public safety, and societal responsibility in navigating such tragic encounters.