Self-defense or too much force? That’s the question for jurors as Daniel Penny subway chokehold trial wraps

A defense attorney pleaded with jurors Monday to empathize with frightened subway riders at the trial of Marine veteran Daniel Penny, who is accused of fatally choking Jordan Neely, a homeless man, during a chaotic episode on a New York City subway train.

It is expected that the DA will finish their presentation Tuesday morning and jury deliberations can begin.

A verdict could come as soon as later this day.

Penny faces charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in a case that has sparked heated debates on race, public safety, and mental health.

Closing Arguments: Justified Action or Reckless Force?

Penny has claimed his actions were necessary to protect fellow passengers from Neely, who was shouting erratically about being willing to die, go to jail, or kill. While prosecutors acknowledged Penny was justified in using some physical force, they argue that his prolonged chokehold crossed the line.

“You cannot kill someone because they are crazy, ranting, and looking menacing,” Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran told jurors. She emphasized that Penny’s actions were excessive, noting he maintained the chokehold even after Neely had gone still, and the train had stopped, allowing passengers to leave.

Defense Appeals to Fear

Defense attorney Steven Raiser countered by painting a vivid picture of the subway scene, urging jurors to imagine themselves in the confined, high-pressure environment. “You’re sitting in a tightly confined space with nowhere to run,” Raiser said. He argued Penny acted heroically to protect strangers, asking jurors, “Who would you want on the next train with you?”

Raiser portrayed Penny as a Good Samaritan who stepped in where others hesitated. He described his client’s actions as a “simple civilian restraint” intended to hold Neely for police, not a lethal chokehold. “The police weren’t there when the people on that train needed help. Danny was,” he said.

The Incident: A Clash of Perceptions

The altercation between Penny, a 26-year-old Marine veteran, and Neely, a 30-year-old struggling with mental illness and homelessness, became a flashpoint for broader societal tensions. Some see Penny as a protector who acted out of necessity to prevent potential violence. Others view him as a white vigilante who unjustly killed a Black man in distress.

Neely, once a popular Michael Jackson impersonator, had struggled with depression, schizophrenia, and addiction following his mother’s violent death during his adolescence. Witnesses described Neely’s behavior on the subway as alarming, though accounts varied on whether his actions were threatening. Several passengers thanked Penny for intervening, while others expressed concern over the chokehold’s duration.

Evidence and Testimonies

Jurors reviewed bystander and police footage showing Penny restraining Neely for about six minutes. They heard testimony from passengers, police officers, pathologists, a Marine Corps instructor, and others. Prosecutors highlighted Penny’s comments to police, in which he referred to Neely as a “crackhead” acting like a “lunatic.” Penny maintained that he only sought to prevent harm. “I’m not trying to kill the guy,” he told detectives.

The city medical examiner ruled Neely’s death a homicide caused by the chokehold, while a defense-hired pathologist suggested other factors contributed to his death.

Verdict to Define Accountability

Prosecutors urged jurors to deliver a clear message. “No person’s life can be so unjustifiably snuffed out,” Yoran said. Meanwhile, the defense insisted Penny acted out of genuine concern and held on because Neely resisted at times.

The case has stirred public outcry on both sides, with demonstrations calling for justice for Neely and rallies supporting Penny. As the jury deliberates, their decision will likely resonate far beyond the courtroom, reflecting the nation’s divided perspectives on accountability, safety, and compassion.

Closing Arguments Set Stage for Jury Deliberation

Flanked by his attorneys, Thomas Kenniff and Steven Raiser, Penny entered the courthouse around 10:15 a.m., where a 12-person jury is set to hear closing arguments from both sides before deliberations begin. Penny faces charges of second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide for the May 2023 subway altercation that resulted in Neely’s death.

Prosecutors argue that Penny acted recklessly, holding the 30-year-old homeless man in a chokehold for nearly six minutes, including 51 seconds after Neely became unresponsive. The incident, captured on bystander video, sparked widespread outrage and debate over self-defense, public safety, and mental health.

Defense Asserts Justification and Doubt

Penny’s legal team contends that his actions were justified, claiming Neely was threatening passengers on the crowded Manhattan subway car. They also argue that there’s reasonable doubt as to whether the chokehold directly caused Neely’s death, pointing to other potential contributing factors.

Potential Sentencing and Public Backlash

If convicted of the top charge, Penny could face up to 15 years in state prison, though the court has the discretion to impose a non-jail sentence. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has not disclosed what penalty he would seek if the jury finds Penny guilty.

The case has ignited heated protests, with demonstrators outside the courthouse chanting, “What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now!” As the trial nears its conclusion, the spotlight remains on the jury’s impending decision and its implications for broader societal debates.