The trial of Daniel Penny, the U.S. Marine veteran charged with manslaughter following the choking death of Jordan Neely, has taken another significant turn. On Friday, December 6, 2024, Judge Maxwell Wiley dismissed the second-degree manslaughter charge against Penny after jurors revealed they were deadlocked on the verdict. The jurors had been delibering since Tuesday without reaching agreement on whether or not Penny was guilty of the top charge. The judge’s decision now allows them to focus solely on the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide.
This case marks another chapter intertwined with societal debates on crime, mental health, and the handling of homelessness—concerns which have been particularly polarizing. Jordan Neely, 30, was, according to witnesses, acting erratically on the subway, allegedly threatening other passengers just before the encounter with Penny. Neely, who struggled with homelessness and mental health issues, was described by some as yelling and waving his arms as he approached Penny and several other subway passengers.
Neely’s past involved several run-ins with the law, including arrests for robbery, assault, and attempted assault, and his struggles with mental health were compounded by drug use. At the same time, Penny's supporters argue he acted out of necessity, protecting himself and other passengers from what he perceived as imminent danger.
During the incident, Penny placed Neely in what was described as a chokehold for approximately six minutes. The city’s medical examiner later determined this maneuver was the cause of Neely’s death. Penny’s defense insists he acted to defend himself and protect others from Neely's aggressive behavior. Prosecution argued, on the other hand, Penny’s response was excessively forceful and reckless considering the circumstances. They accuse him of failing to properly assess the situation, effectively turning from victim to perpetrator.
When the jury conveyed they were at an impasse on the manslaughter charge, Judge Wiley explained to them they could now deliberate on criminally negligent homicide, which carries less severe penalties compared to manslaughter. While manslaughter can lead up to 15 years of imprisonment if convicted, criminally negligent homicide might result in probation or prison time ranging up to four years.
Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran argued for the jury to focus on the lesser charge following their deadlock, stating, "A hung jury is not the victory for the defendant here. We need to find some way to allow the jury to render verdicts on the serious questions at hand."">
Before dismissing the top charge, Judge Wiley also shared thoughts on the importance of jurors having the chance to deliberate over criminally negligent homicide, saying, "Whether this shift makes any difference, I have no idea, but you can now focus on count two." This effectively encouraged jurors to take the time to review the potential for finding Penny guilty of fewer lesser charges, indicating the complexity of the case.
Throughout the trial and the coverage leading up to it, Penny's background as a Marine has played heavily on public sentiment. Supporters describe him as someone who instinctively acted to protect both himself and innocent bystanders on the transit system—a place notorious for unpredictable and sometimes dangerous encounters. Opponents often highlight the systemic issues tied to the incident, framing it within broader societal failures to adequately address mental health crises and homelessness.
Earlier on the same day, jurors had sent two notes to Judge Wiley indicating they were unable to reach on verdict after about 60 minutes of deliberation. The first note stated plainly, "We the jury request instructions from Judge Wiley. At this time, we are unable to come to a unanimous vote on count one – manslaughter."
Following consultations, and after Judge Wiley gave the jury what’s known as also referred to as the Allen charge—a standard procedure encouraging jurors to reconsider their positions without yielding to pressure—the decision was put forth to begin focusing on the less serious charge.
The dismissal of the manslaughter charge certainly doesn’t secure Penny's acquittal entirely. The jury can still find him guilty of criminally negligent homicide. The debate surrounding how justifiably his actions are interpreted and understood will likely continue even after the verdict is reached, whether guilty or not guilty.
While this is not victory for Penny, it still allows them to deliberate on criminally negligent homicide. His future remains under threat, and he has already incurred substantial lawyer costs. He may still face civil suits resulting from this altercation.
Just days following the dismissal announcement, public opinion places this case at the intersection of the question of vigilantism, personal safety, and the ethical responsibilities of the public when witnessing confrontational episodes on the subway. Advocates for mental health reform and proper substance abuse programs may see Neely's death as emblematic of larger stories missed in discussions of crime and punishment.
What remains clear is the trial will not conclude this contentious discourse surrounding Penny's actions and the ramifications of crime and safety perception within New York City’s subway system. While the focus now directly pivots toward the consequences of criminally negligent homicide, whether this will affect broader dialogue around societal responsibilities toward individuals struggling with severe mental health issues remains uncertain.