During the closing arguments in the trial of Daniel Penny, Manhattan prosecutors emphasized his failure to recognize the humanity of Jordan Neely, the homeless man he restrained in a subway chokehold, leading to Neely’s death. Prosecutor Dafna Yoran accused Penny of viewing Neely merely as a threat to be eliminated rather than as a person deserving of compassion. She pointed to Penny’s police interrogation video, where he referred to Neely in derogatory terms, arguing that such language indicated a lack of empathy and recklessness toward Neely’s life. Yoran expressed her belief that the nature of Penny’s comments was telling, suggesting that a reasonable person would not speak dismissively about someone they had just killed, underscoring the prosecution’s view that Penny had acted with malice.
The defense countered this assertion by arguing that Penny’s actions were taken in a moment of perceived necessity, as he stepped in during a crisis when the subway riders were in fear for their safety due to Neely’s erratic behavior. Penny’s attorney, Steven Raiser, painted him as someone who responded when the police and government failed to protect passengers. Raiser emphasized the delay in police response to the 911 call and characterized Neely as being on a “collision course with himself,” influenced by his struggles with drug use and mental illness. According to the defense, Penny’s actions were not intended to harm Neely but were meant to subdue him in a less aggressive way, adhering to his training as a Marine.
Throughout the trial, the prosecution and defense presented contrasting narratives regarding the circumstances leading up to Neely’s death. The prosecutor indicated that while Neely exhibited threatening behavior, Penny could have chosen a less forceful approach to restrain him. Yoran argued that Penny easily could have released Neely when bystanders urged him to do so, implying that his prolonged chokehold was excessive and reckless. By replaying critical moments of the incident in court, Yoran aimed to remind the jury of the gravity of Penny’s actions, stating that Neely’s death could have been avoided altogether had Penny acted with more restraint.
Additionally, the defense contended that Penny’s restraint technique was indicative of a less aggressive approach than what he had been trained to use. Raiser cited expert testimony from Dr. Satish Chundru, who suggested that Neely’s death stemmed from multiple factors—including the influence of drugs and existing health conditions—rather than solely from the chokehold. The defense’s argument hinged on the idea that Penny was not aware of the risk Neely faced due to his underlying health issues and therefore could not be held criminally responsible for the outcome.
The varying interpretations of the evidence presented in court also encapsulated broader societal discussions regarding race and public safety. The defense argued that the prosecution’s framing of Penny’s actions and language might unfairly suggest racial undertones that could prejudice the trial. They viewed the accusations against Penny as an oversimplification of a complex situation involving mental illness and public disorder. This context played a significant role in the jurors’ considerations, as they were tasked with balancing societal implications against the specific actions of Penny on that fateful day.
As the trial entered its final stages, the jury was reminded of the potential consequences of their decision. Penny faced serious charges, including manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, which could carry significant prison time if he was found guilty. Closing arguments from both sides sought to crystallize their respective narratives in the jurors’ minds, and deliberations were anticipated to reflect not only the facts of the case but also their implications for issues of public safety, mental health, and the discourse around race and systemic failings in urban environments. The outcome of the trial ultimately rested in the hands of a jury that would have to sift through the emotional weight of Neely’s death and the circumstances surrounding it, mindful of the societal implications embedded within their decision.
