NOT GUILTY Daniel Penny on Trial for manslaughter and negligent homicide of Jordan Neely #4

[Inthedetails]

No verdict today in #DanielPenny trial Jury requests deliberation to continue tomorrow

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I am hoping the jury has made their decision, or are close to it, and wanted a night to sleep on it, but not have a whole day off before announcing their verdict.

jmo

 

[fred&edna]

Unfortunately . . .

If Good Samaritan's already thought twice (or three) times before stepping in to protect others, then a guilty verdict will likely mean they may never consider trying to help... ever. As it may never be worth the risk of their freedom.

jmo

 

[GRT]

As we wait for the verdict, I want to talk about the integrity of the prosecution in this case.

According to Daily Mail, the DA's Office leaned on reporters to report the story the way the DA wanted it reported.

"Meanwhile Penny's lawyer tore into the prosecution after journalists were peppered with emails from the DA's office ordering them to include certain details in their stories."

Don't prosecutors have a duty to seek justice impartially? Efforts to control media narratives seem to conflict with their ethical obligations. They also seem to undermine freedom of the press to some extent.

At the very least, it seems like an ethical overreach. Could someone in the DA's office face discipline over that?

All MOO

 

[Sillybilly]

As we wait for the verdict, I want to talk about the integrity of the prosecution in this case.

According to Daily Mail, the DA's Office leaned on reporters to report the story the way the DA wanted it reported.



Don't prosecutors have a duty to seek justice impartially? Efforts to control media narratives seem to conflict with their ethical obligations. They also seem to undermine freedom of the press to some extent.

At the very least, it seems like an ethical overreach. Could someone in the DA's office face discipline over that?

All MOO

Without knowing the content of those emails, it's hard to say. Perhaps it was a matter of clarification or setting the record straight in some regard. As happens with most cases, defence lawyers representing their client DP were frequently speaking with the press after his arrest, putting out information in the best interest of their client. I can't think of any reason why the prosecution should be barred from doing the same thing on behalf of their client, the government.

JMO

 

[Lilibet]

As we wait for the verdict, I want to talk about the integrity of the prosecution in this case.

According to Daily Mail, the DA's Office leaned on reporters to report the story the way the DA wanted it reported.



Don't prosecutors have a duty to seek justice impartially? Efforts to control media narratives seem to conflict with their ethical obligations. They also seem to undermine freedom of the press to some extent.

At the very least, it seems like an ethical overreach. Could someone in the DA's office face discipline over that?

All MOO

I would be more inclined to believe this vague statement from the Daily Mail if it had quoted a journalist or two.
Attorneys can and frequently do say whatever they want in opening and closing statements. Do you have a link to the closing statement of the defense that is more complete than the Daily Mail statement?

“Meanwhile Penny's lawyer tore into the prosecution after journalists were peppered with emails from the DA's office ordering them to include certain details in their stories.”

The question Daniel Penny jury asked an hour into deliberations

The jury are weighing manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide charges against Daniel Penny who used a fatal chokehold to subdue Jordan Neely on the New York City subway.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[GRT]

Without knowing the content of those emails, it's hard to say. Perhaps it was a matter of clarification or setting the record straight in some regard. As happens with most cases, defence lawyers representing their client DP were frequently speaking with the press after his arrest, putting out information in the best interest of their client. I can't think of any reason why the prosecution should be barred from doing the same thing on behalf of their client, the government.

JMO

I completely agree that without knowing what was in the emails, we can't determine the extent of the issue, if any.

And, for some odd reason, we're not getting as much information from this trial as we get for most, so it's hard to know whether the Defense had a legitimate gripe.

However, it is a violation of Rule 3.6: Trial Publicity (from the American Bar Association) to make statements that could prejudice the outcome. Here's the relevant part:

(a) "A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter."

So, again, we're back to what you said about needing to know the content of the emails.

 

[GRT]

I would be more inclined to believe this vague statement from the Daily Mail if it had quoted a journalist or two.
Attorneys can and frequently do say whatever they want in opening and closing statements. Do you have a link to the closing statement of the defense that is more complete than the Daily Mail statement?

“Meanwhile Penny's lawyer tore into the prosecution after journalists were peppered with emails from the DA's office ordering them to include certain details in their stories.”

The question Daniel Penny jury asked an hour into deliberations

The jury are weighing manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide charges against Daniel Penny who used a fatal chokehold to subdue Jordan Neely on the New York City subway.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Yes, it would be helpful if we heard directly from a journalist or two about what they'd been asked to do.

I tend to agree that Daily Mail can be an iffy source, but it's allowed here so I thought I'd see what others thought about the comment. I haven't really looked for corroborating sources.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Without knowing the content of those emails, it's hard to say. Perhaps it was a matter of clarification or setting the record straight in some regard. As happens with most cases, defence lawyers representing their client DP were frequently speaking with the press after his arrest, putting out information in the best interest of their client. I can't think of any reason why the prosecution should be barred from doing the same thing on behalf of their client, the government.

JMO

It's one thing to give interviews & share your side of things, and it's a complete different beast to pro-actively contact the media to insist they report certain things.

I find this completely unethical, and yet not surprising in the least.

jmo

 

[Ontario Mom]

"The prosecutor trying Daniel Penny is a hardline progressive who once bragged about getting a mugger who killed an 87 year-old off a murder charge. Assistant Manhattan DA Dafna Yoran has asked jurors to convict the marine veteran of manslaughter over the subway chokehold death of Jordan Neely, despite previously pushing for 'restorative justice' for criminals." Daniel Penny prosecutor's 'hypocrisy' revealed

 

[Inthedetails]

The coverage of the case has been decidedly one-sided, imo. It's not unreasonable or irresponsible to expect media outlets to cover the entire picture, not just part of it. Sensational coverage in NYPost and other rags is always deliberately sensational to rile up the outraged audience. (And yes, I mean "always.")

In my opinion.

 

[Jade]

I have trust in the jury that however they decide on the charges it will have been done in good faith and they have done their due diligence.

I have confidence in LE, the jury and the NYC courts which are Trial, Immediate Appellate and Appeals.

I believe both sides have been energetically represented and the Judge's instructions thorough.

Because of that I won’t be upset with their decision.

I really don’t think it is going to have that much impact either way on society as a whole.

In my part of the country it’s happened in far way NYC.

Those of us who have daily contact with severely mentally ill homeless will still have that no matter what happens in this case.

Mine is a year around good weather location with a Matthew 25-31-46 community. We are loaded with churches with homeless services and multiple nonprofits for homeless health care and shelters. They come from all over the country which is a little overwhelming to be honest but the community feels it is their religious duty to serve the needy and homeless.

The faithful step forward and ask to pray with the disturbed. They purposely carry snacks and water to distribute as they go through the day.

It’s a different world outside NYC with its layout, population and laws.


All imo

 

[shotgun09]

From Inner City Press this am:

Update of 10:08 am: Judge Wiley has assumed the bench. While waiting for notes from the Daniel Penny jury, lawyers in others of Wiley's cases line up. The order goes out, shouted: no talking in the courtroom. Protesters' chants audible through window

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ontario Mom]

From Inner City Press this am:

Update of 10:08 am: Judge Wiley has assumed the bench. While waiting for notes from the Daniel Penny jury, lawyers in others of Wiley's cases line up. The order goes out, shouted: no talking in the courtroom. Protesters' chants audible through window

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Maybe one of our verified attorneys can chime in here on how exactly this is even legal? It doesn't seem like it should be, <modsnip> but is it actually illegal to allow protesters so close to the building that their "guilty!" chants can be heard in the courtroom?

 

[Snoopster]

Maybe one of our verified attorneys can chime in here on how exactly this is even legal? It doesn't seem like it should be, <modsnip> but is it actually illegal to allow protesters so close to the building that their "guilty!" chants can be heard in the courtroom?

I agree that protesters' loud chants (no matter whether for or against the defendant) should not be allowed to be heard in the courtroom. For the vast majority of trials I've watched (not that is a huge sample) I haven't seen windows inthe courtrooms. I presume that is for security and privacy? Does anyone know if this courtroom has windows and is that common?

 

[Inthedetails]

I agree that protesters' loud chants (no matter whether for or against the defendant) should not be allowed to be heard in the courtroom. For the vast majority of trials I've watched (not that is a huge sample) I haven't seen windows inthe courtrooms. I presume that is for security and privacy? Does anyone know if this courtroom has windows and is that common?

I agree. The protesters should be moved down the block, imo. There is another public park/plaza a short distance away that I think would be a better location anyway. I don't like shouting outside of any court case, no matter what case it is. I always cringe when I see that happening on other threads.

jmo

 

[Jade]

I agree. The protesters should be moved down the block, imo. There is another public park/plaza a short distance away that I think would be a better location anyway. I don't like shouting outside of any court case, no matter what case it is. I always cringe when I see that happening on other threads.

jmo

It does seem like the chanting would be interfering with the purpose for which the building was designed therefore limiting the right to speak out.


I still have confidence the jury isn’t going to invest all this time including slow-motion video viewing to go with what the shouters say to do over their own deliberation.


all imo

 

[Snoopster]

I also have confidence that the jury is taking their job seriously and it won't affect the verdict. The jury has the information that they need and have sat through everything, without the non-evidentiary distraction that we all have here. They are in the best position to make the best verdict for the specific charges in the case. I will respect their verdict, no matter the outcome.

 

[shotgun09]

From ICP :

Judge Wiley: We have received a note. The jury is requesting the Vasquez video, compilation of the body-cam video, and video of the interview. Shall we send the laptop back? I'll bring them out and tell them that, ask for a note if they want more

Jury entering!
Judge Wiley: We got your note, we'll send them on a laptop and flash drive, they're all labeled. If you want the defense exhibit of body cams, just send out a note. You may continue deliberations.Jury exits.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Inthedetails]

It does seem like the chanting would be interfering with the purpose for which the building was designed therefore limiting the right to speak out.


I still have confidence the jury isn’t going to invest all this time including slow-motion video viewing to go with what the shouters say to do over their own deliberation.


all imo

I don't think the jury will be swayed by the chanting or shouts, tbh. The city is not new to demonstrations, marches, etc.

I just think it's unbecoming and circus-like - in ANY trial case, not just this one. And that is not a blanket statement against freedom of speech - just take a few steps away from the courthouse while lawful proceedings are happening. My opinion.

jmo

 

[PrairieWind]

Without knowing the content of those emails, it's hard to say. Perhaps it was a matter of clarification or setting the record straight in some regard. As happens with most cases, defence lawyers representing their client DP were frequently speaking with the press after his arrest, putting out information in the best interest of their client. I can't think of any reason why the prosecution should be barred from doing the same thing on behalf of their client, the government.

JMO

Certainly we would need to know exactly what the DA office said in those emails. But keep in mind the rules are a little different for prosecutors. They are not allowed to make certain extra-judicial statements that a defense attorney could still get away with.