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

[Lilibet]

IMO It’s important to remember that Mr Neely is not on trial and that in court Mr Penny is innocent until proven guilty. He does not have to prove his innocence. The prosecution has to prove his guilt by presenting evidence that proves the charge of manslaughter and criminal negligence. Did Mr Penny’s actions result in Mr Neely’s death or not? Neither Mr Neely’s nor Mr Penny’s character matters. Whether or not Mr Penny was justified in restraining him is not in question.

All that the jurors have to decide is whether Mr Penny’s actions were reckless and/or negligent and resulted in Mr Neely’s death as the primary reason. In other words, would Mr Neely have died at that point anyway had Mr Penny not restrained him with a chokehold? This will involve evaluating the evidence presented and deciding whether or not they believe witnesses.

If I were the jury foreperson, here is how I’d handle this. I would take an immediate vote to see how many feel he is guilty and how many not guilty. Then I would ask each person what evidence points most strongly to their verdict and write those on a whiteboard. I would ask each side to counter the other side’s reasoning and see if any minds are changed. If any are undecided, what evidence do they need to review? I’ve never been on a jury so I don’t know if this is how it’s done, but it makes sense to me. Does anyone know how deliberations really work?

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Have closing arguments been made yet?

Not yet

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Have closing arguments been made yet?

No Dec 2

 

[Ontario Mom]

I suspect the closing arguments will look a lot like some of the posts on this thread.

I've never been on a jury before but I do have to wonder if those who serve on a high profile case ever go home after all is said and done, and look for forums just like this one to see what folks were saying while the trial was going on.

ETA: It might be cool if they did, and found this one. I'd love to know what we got right, what we were dead wrong about, etc. I'd be fascinated to hear an actual juror's point of view.

 

[Inthedetails]

IMO It’s important to remember that Mr Neely is not on trial and that in court Mr Penny is innocent until proven guilty. He does not have to prove his innocence. The prosecution has to prove his guilt by presenting evidence that proves the charge of manslaughter and criminal negligence. Did Mr Penny’s actions result in Mr Neely’s death or not? Neither Mr Neely’s nor Mr Penny’s character matters. Whether or not Mr Penny was justified in restraining him is not in question.

All that the jurors have to decide is whether Mr Penny’s actions were reckless and/or negligent and resulted in Mr Neely’s death as the primary reason. In other words, would Mr Neely have died at that point anyway had Mr Penny not restrained him with a chokehold? This will involve evaluating the evidence presented and deciding whether or not they believe witnesses.

If I were the jury foreperson, here is how I’d handle this. I would take an immediate vote to see how many feel he is guilty and how many not guilty. Then I would ask each person what evidence points most strongly to their verdict and write those on a whiteboard. I would ask each side to counter the other side’s reasoning and see if any minds are changed. If any are undecided, what evidence do they need to review? I’ve never been on a jury so I don’t know if this is how it’s done, but it makes sense to me. Does anyone know how deliberations really work?

Great post!

I would suggest to my fellow jurors we take the law and go through each point of the charges that must to be proved and match it to the evidence presented in court.

Was each point of the charges proven beyond reasonable doubt, yes or no?

If the discussion around the table goes beyond what is required by the law, I would hope to steer the jurors back to matching the law to the evidence.

jmo

 

[Lilibet]

Great post!

I would suggest to my fellow jurors we take the law and go through each point of the charges that must to be proved and match it to the evidence presented in court.

Was each point of the charges proven beyond reasonable doubt, yes or no?

If the discussion around the table goes beyond what is required by the law, I would hope to steer the jurors back to matching the law to the evidence.

jmo

That sounds like a much simpler way to handle it than I envisioned. I’ll go with your method!

 

[IDK]

BBM:
Dr. Harris is a medical examiner who is also a forensic pathologist .

"Dr. Harris gave her best opinion, but she's just an MD who focuses on autopsies. She's par for the course in most cities. Dr. Chundru, on the other hand, is an actual forensic pathologist, someone who was first a doctor and then did a residency in forensic pathology. I hope Dr. Harris will now take it upon herself to learn what exertional sickling is because 9% of African Americans carry SCT, and they, too, are at risk."


Pathology Outlines
https://www.pathologyoutlines.com › directory › cynthi...




View attachment 546848
Feb 21, 2024 — Cynthia Harris, MD, Institution: Office of Chief Medical Examiner, New York City, Location: Massachusetts, Subspecialties: Autopsy & forensics.

Not to diminish her accomplishments, but this doesn’t mention if Dr. Harris is even board certified. That is the gold standard among physicians and she is missing that credential.

Dr. Chundru on the other hand is one of only 600 Board Certified Forensic Pathologists in the country and has extensive experience as a Deputy Chief Medical Examiner.

IMO he’s far more knowledgeable and experienced than Dr. Harris. If I needed a medical opinion, I know who I would choose.

All IMO.

 

[Inthedetails]

As a review, here are the actual charges DP faces:

§ 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
He recklessly causes the death of another person...
Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.

§ 125.10 Criminally negligent homicide.
A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with
criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.
Criminally negligent homicide is a class E felony.

This might be useful to consider too:
"According to New York Penal Law § 15.05(4), acting with "criminal negligence" means that you failed to perceive a substantial risk that your actions or inaction would result in another person's death. The risk must constitute a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe under the circumstances."

I am not a lawyer. I used these sources:

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

NY Penal Law § 125.11: Aggravated criminally negligent homicide

Free Consultation - Our New York criminal lawyers have a combined 100+ years of legal and law enforcement experience. Our team includes former prosecutors from the District Attorney’s offices in New York City and Long Island, as well as law enforcement professionals. Stephen Bilkis & Associates...

criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com

__________________________

EDITED TO ADD THIS, which might be helpful:
According to New York Penal Law § 15.05(3), acting "recklessly" as used in the manslaughter in the second degree statute is defined as being aware that your actions present a substantial risk that someone could be killed and disregarding that risk.

NY Penal Law § 125.15: Manslaughter in the second degree

Free Consultation - Our New York criminal lawyers have a combined 100+ years of legal and law enforcement experience. Our team includes former prosecutors from the District Attorney’s offices in New York City and Long Island, as well as law enforcement professionals. Stephen Bilkis & Associates...

criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com

 

[GRT]

I do wonder if it had turned out that Jordan Neely had no criminal record, no record of violence at all, would people still blame him for his death at the hands of Daniel Penny. Would there be more empathy for him if he was "just" mentally ill?
I think that's another thing we can never know for sure. JMO

I don't think anyone is blaming him, he didn't choose to have SCT or schizophrenia. Both of those contributed to his sickling death, according to Dr. Chundru.

And, as a society, we have a long history of not blaming people who cannot control their thoughts and actions. JN was in that group--at least some of the time. MOO

But, the jury is tasked with figuring out what role JN played in his own death--if any. That's their job. They must decide whether DP's actions were justified based on JN's actions that day. Then, they have to decide whether they believe what Dr. Chundru explained to them.

Given that they won't be going back to jury duty until after Thanksgiving, I'm guessing at least some of them will do a little research on SCT and exertional sickling. MOO

But, I could be wrong. Just all MOO

But, even if DP is found not-guilty, I don't think we'll find anyone blaming JN for his death. I think everyone is pretty much on the same page--thinking that we just don't have enough options for treating mentally ill folks.

All MOO

 

[Inthedetails]

That sounds like a much simpler way to handle it than I envisioned. I’ll go with your method!

We'll hash it out in the jury room. I'll request some donuts and you get the white board ready.

jmo

 

[Inthedetails]

Given that they won't be going back to jury duty until after Thanksgiving, I'm guessing at least some of them will do a little research on SCT and exertional sickling. MOO

snipped

Oh no! I hope the jury does not do their own research and I'm sure they will follow strict instructions not to. If they do, it will be a mistrial. I trust juries to take their duties seriously and not break the rules.

The jury is to deliberate ONLY on what is presented to them in court, not anything else.

jmo

 

[GRT]

BBM:
IMO:
In regards to your "peer review" links.

When Dr Harris quoted the "American Association of Pathology" findings on SCT which disputes Dr Chundru's claim that JP's sickled cells found in his autopsy is what caused his lack of oxygen intake from resisting being restrained and not the chokehold.

She threw a whopper of a wrench into his expert claims.
Cells "sickle" during the rigor mortis process.

The ASP lays it all out here in pretty simple terms.

ASH Position on Sickle Cell Trait - Hematology.org

ASH Position on Sickle Cell Trait

www.hematology.org

Your link doesn't conflict with what Dr. Chundru testified to.

A little research on exertional sickling clearly explains what happens and how it's nearly always fatal when it happens.

 

[shotgun09]

I don't think anyone is blaming him, he didn't choose to have SCT or schizophrenia. Both of those contributed to his sickling death, according to Dr. Chundru.

And, as a society, we have a long history of not blaming people who cannot control their thoughts and actions. JN was in that group--at least some of the time. MOO

But, the jury is tasked with figuring out what role JN played in his own death--if any. That's their job. They must decide whether DP's actions were justified based on JN's actions that day. Then, they have to decide whether they believe what Dr. Chundru explained to them.

Given that they won't be going back to jury duty until after Thanksgiving, I'm guessing at least some of them will do a little research on SCT and exertional sickling. MOO

But, I could be wrong. Just all MOO

But, even if DP is found not-guilty, I don't think we'll find anyone blaming JN for his death. I think everyone is pretty much on the same page--thinking that we just don't have enough options for treating mentally ill folks.

All MOO

Like you, I am a bit unsettled with the 10 days off scenario. That amount of time leaves open for any possible research, or goodness knows....even juror influencing and compromising.

I will admit up-front, that I have watched many trials, and read far too many John Grisham novels. So, there's that..

 

[Lilibet]

Your link doesn't conflict with what Dr. Chundru testified to.

A little research on exertional sickling clearly explains what happens and how it's nearly always fatal when it happens.

This part of the link from the American Society of Hematology certainly causes one to doubt Dr Chundru’s testimony regarding sickle cell trait being the cause of death.

ASH Position on Sickle Cell Trait - Hematology.org

ASH Position on Sickle Cell Trait

www.hematology.org

It is medically inaccurate to claim sickle cell crisis as the cause of death based solely on the presence of sickled cells at autopsy.Sudden death is an extraordinarily rare occurrence in sickle cell trait and the finding of sickle cell trait is unlikely to supersede other inflicted traumas as the cause or major factor in death. Millions of American men, women and children with sickle cell trait lead normal, healthy lives, and there have been no well-controlled studies on collapse due to exertion that would provide evidence to cite sickle cell trait as a cause of death. Because of the rarity of sudden death in persons with sickle cell trait, cases where this is cited as the sole cause of death, or a major contributor must be viewed with profound skepticism.

BBM

 

[LinasK]

IMO:
IIRC:
Dr. Chundru put JN's resistance along with the SCT, K2 etc is what killed him and not the choke.

On cross Dr Harris got Dr Chundru to walk back quite a few serious claims that he made about the autopsy and photos of JN.
That the bruises and broken blood vessels on JN's neck did not line up with the position of DP's arm and that J did have broken vessels in his eyes.
His SCT claims were rebuked with his own writings and studies from the American Society of pathology.
He was an expensive smooth talker who when caught in a medical untruth would back down from his original claim but end with "JN didn't die from a chokehold".

Jurors do NOT like it when hired experts are caught in medical untruths,deceptions and deliberately confusing explanations that they used to line up with the defense's strategy.

And what came out of it was that sickling doesn't occur in seconds or minutes, so that cannot have been the cause of death. This important point keeps getting overlooked.

 

[Inthedetails]

Like you, I am a bit unsettled with the 10 days off scenario. That amount of time leaves open for any possible research, or goodness knows....even juror influencing and compromising.

I will admit up-front, that I have watched many trials, and read far too many John Grisham novels. So, there's that..

Listen to some juror interviews after cases. Hearing random Americans discuss how they took their duty seriously always lifts my faith in the system. People really do act responsibly and follow the instructions given to them.

I don't have any such interviews to recommend, just speaking from memory how meaningful it can be to hear jurors talk about the seriousness in the deliberation room.

jmo

 

[Leilei]

I don't think anyone is blaming him, he didn't choose to have SCT or schizophrenia. Both of those contributed to his sickling death, according to Dr. Chundru.

And, as a society, we have a long history of not blaming people who cannot control their thoughts and actions. JN was in that group--at least some of the time. MOO

But, the jury is tasked with figuring out what role JN played in his own death--if any. That's their job. They must decide whether DP's actions were justified based on JN's actions that day. Then, they have to decide whether they believe what Dr. Chundru explained to them.

Given that they won't be going back to jury duty until after Thanksgiving, I'm guessing at least some of them will do a little research on SCT and exertional sickling. MOO

But, I could be wrong. Just all MOO

But, even if DP is found not-guilty, I don't think we'll find anyone blaming JN for his death. I think everyone is pretty much on the same page--thinking that we just don't have enough options for treating mentally ill folks.

All MOO

BBM - jurors are not allowed to do that. They can only deliberate on the evidence presented. If any juror was found to have done their own research, the judge would very firmly dismiss them.
IMO.

 

[Leilei]

snipped

Oh no! I hope the jury does not do their own research and I'm sure they will follow strict instructions not to. If they do, it will be a mistrial. I trust juries to take their duties seriously and not break the rules.

The jury is to deliberate ONLY on what is presented to them in court, not anything else.

jmo

I didn't even think about a mistrial in my comment, which is even worse. Thank you for this!

 

[shotgun09]

One area not yet discussed in the very limited and generic media coverage, is the jury. I have yet to see or hear about the seated jurors. Their demeanor ( perceived), are they aloof or engaged? Any nappers? Are there any facial responses, or gasps.? We, or at least I have not seen one iota of that.

This trial by tweets and limited reporting has me very perplexed. I am spoiled by following live stream trials, along with more frequent media updates through trial watchers.
Where is Law and Crime? And, Court TV?

 

[shotgun09]

Just browsing through the choppy 'x' coverage, and noticed this from Dan Rivoli from yesterdays court tweets.

I did not know that the state called a rebuttal witness after the defense rested!

Interesting....They had to call this LE guy back, to change/clarify his earlier testimony.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1860061965969948705