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

[fred&edna]

I find it interesting that Dr Chundru studied two toxicology reports for JN... maybe this help him in determining illegal drug levels??

jmo

 

[Leilei]

I believe that it's probable that Jordan Neely died of natural causes. I'm hoping that tomorrow brings an acquittal for Danial Penny so he can try to go on with his life.

JMO.

He may very well be acquitted, but there was nothing natural about JN's death.
IMO.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I believe that it's probable that Jordan Neely died of natural causes. I'm hoping that tomorrow brings an acquittal for Danial Penny so he can try to go on with his life.

JMO.

The ME begs to differ!

 

[katydid23]

These are all horrible situations. I'm so sorry to hear this. Maybe they need security on all the buses? I know that's expensive but we can't lose another human this way.

As far as Jordan Neely please understand that when someone's mental illness is this bad their friends and family would not be able to give him his medications. He needed forced treatment which he didn't get which is certainly not his fault.
Jordan Neely is considered a victim.

I understand that he is considered a victim. But so are the others on the train. They were all victims too.

I do understand, very well, about having a loved one with mental health issues. My little brother was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia back in the 70's. Our family spent decades on that roller coaster with him, trying to make sure he stayed on his meds. It didn't always work, he did go off them at times with bad results. And attaining 'forced treatment' is impossible unless the patient has done something violent already.

One time my brother took my Stepdad's comfy living room chair outside in the back, and stabbed it a hundred times with an ice pick. We called for help and they did nothing but shake their heads and tell us to 'be careful.'

The only one who could get through to him was Mom, who could usually convince him to keep taking his meds. It took a lot out of her to keep on him like that, but she felt the responsibility to do so. We all felt that responsibility.But my parents did lock their bedroom door with a deadbolt at night.

As a society, we need to stop normalising violent outbursts. If someone shouts death threats at people in an enclosed space, they should be taken for treatment, imo. It should not be allowed to continue as if it is OK, and as if we should all just ignore that kind of violent behaviour. IMO

 

[katydid23]

Yep. Neely didn't even touch anyone else or talk to anyone else or threaten anyone directly. He was likely talking to voices in his head from his schizophrenia and responding.

When someone yells death threats to voices in their head, the people around them are in danger. The delusions can take over and the patient mistakes the innocents around him as those voices. I've seen it happen. Sometimes nothing bad happens and they just scream into the air. But sometimes they attack a passerby with no warning.

Then a stranger came up from behind him and put him in a chokehold.
It's unbelievable to me the comments on this thread thinking this is ok in any regard.

It may have saved others around JN from being attacked. He did have a history of lashing out physically.

Jordan Neely is the victim.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

The virtue signalling and bickering about this case is never going to change another member's opinion, so please stop trying.

Proponents on either 'side' are guilty of doing this, so please don't try to justify it. We may not agree, but every member is entitled to an opinion ... and it's not up to other members to hammer their own point so frequently in some attempt to change another member's mind. Just repeating your opinion and subsequently chastising others for their opinion isn't respectful discussion.

Stop being mad at each other. Learn to scroll and roll folks.

 

[shotgun09]

Tomorrow will be an interesting court day. I am hopeful this thread will survive to see this case come to a close.

jmo

Same here ! I am hoping for an acquittal, however I expect a mistrial will be called, for one reason or another. I have cancelled all appointments, freed up some more time, and will be glued to 'x' for the limited reporting we do get.

 

[Seattle1]

Defense pathologist says Jordan Neely didn't die of chokehold on NYC subway

A forensic pathologist hired by Daniel Penny’s attorneys disputed a New York City medical examiner’s finding that Penny’s chokehold killed Neely in May 2023.

www.nbcnews.com

11/21/24

Chundru said he believed Neely died from “the combined effects of sickle cell crisis, the schizophrenia, the struggle and restraint and the synthetic marijuana” that was in his system. He said he had reviewed Neely’s autopsy report, two toxicology reports, genetic studies, photographs from the autopsy, “a couple of videos of the incident,” psychiatric records, witness statements and transcripts of police body camera video, among other things.

 

[Seattle1]

6/11/23

NYC subway chokehold: 'I knew I had to act' Daniel Penny video message sent by defense​

 

[Donswife48]

I believe if Count 1 failed, they were always going to have to consider Count 2. The instruction to the jury is framed as 'you must reach a verdict on Count 1 and otherwise cannot consider Count 2' because obviously the judge doesn't want to suggest to the jury that they could be a hung jury. But a hung jury is always a possibility, or a charge being dropped. And IF they are a hung jury or a charge is dropped, in reality...they're going to have to consider Count 2, cause that's how it works. Count 2 doesn't magically disappear.

I don't think we're going to agree on this, but hopefully my view here is clear. In any event, it may all be a moot point, and if not, there's an appeal.

The judge is being creative in manipulating the charges. The judge initially ruled that the jury could not deliberate on the second charge unless they found Penny not guilty of manslaughter by some reason other than that the chokehold was justified.

The jury DID NOT find Penny not guilty of manslaughter but rather they were dead locked. Therefore they CANNOT deliberate on the second charge. If they had found DP not guilty, they were instructed ot not deliberate on count 2, so you are wrong in your belief.

<modsnip: No link to approved source for information stated as fact>

 

[LinasK]

The judge is being creative in manipulating the charges. The judge initially ruled that the jury could not deliberate on the second charge unless they found Penny not guilty of manslaughter by some reason other than that the chokehold was justified.

The jury DID NOT find Penny not guilty of manslaughter but rather they were dead locked. Therefore they CANNOT deliberate on the second charge. If they had found DP not guilty, they were instructed ot not deliberate on count 2, so you are wrong in your belief.

<modsnip: No link to approved source for information stated as fact>

<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped> ... I've seen this done in SO many cases, that when a jury can't decide on a higher charge, they are given the option to vote on the lesser charges. There's nothing illegal about that. It doesn't mean automatic mistrial/acquittal/exoneration. <modsnip: unnecessary>

 

[Donswife48]

Which attorneys? Ones licensed in NY??? I've seen this done in SO many cases, that when a jury can't decide on a higher charge, they are given the option to vote on the lesser charges. There's nothing illegal about that. It doesn't mean automatic mistrial/acquittal/exoneration. <modsnip>

<modsnip: We need a link, not just you saying they said it>

 

[LinasK]

<modsnip: We need a link, not just you saying they said it>

Nonetheless, NY law is what counts- not just any talking head legal eagle's opinion from anywhere else around the country.

 

[shotgun09]

The judge IMO, gave the DA's the forbidden second bite of the apple, by allowing the removal of the first count, after the jury was hung, and going for just the second count. You cannot try a defendant twice. THAT is the issue. Double Jeopardy.

If they ( state) did it correctly, they should never have allowed the second count to be contingent on the first. They gambled, they overcharged, and lost ( mistrial/ hung jury) ....and the judge gave them a second chance and offered up the once bitten apple. Unconstitutional and WRONG .

All my own opinion. IANAL

 

[INfisherman]

Fortunately, regardless of who is supported, the only beliefs & opinions which truly matter are those of the jurors. Hopefully the jurors are able to put their convictions aside & truly make a good, just & fair decision. Regardless of the outcome, there will be some who aren’t happy. How one chooses to handle the outcome says so much more than any post made here.

JMO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

The judge IMO, gave the DA's the forbidden second bite of the apple, by allowing the removal of the first count, after the jury was hung, and going for just the second count. You cannot try a defendant twice. THAT is the issue. Double Jeopardy.

If they ( state) did it correctly, they should never have allowed the second count to be contingent on the first. They gambled, they overcharged, and lost ( mistrial/ hung jury) ....and the judge gave them a second chance and offered up the once bitten apple. Unconstitutional and WRONG .

All my own opinion. IANAL

Yes @shotgun09 …. this does seem to be the case. And I won’t readily be able to find it, but IIRC someone posted last evening that if agreement could not be reached on the first count, jurors were I believe not to attempt to proceed with the second count? It might have been a post from @Seattle1 ? But I might be mistaken. If that is true what occurred and allowed the supposed shift in deliberation allowances? SMH

IANAL either. Tomorrow could be interesting following this. And will be interesting to see whether preference would be to seek a mistrial, if judge grants one, or if one prefers to address with an appeal later? Perhaps the prosecution, defense, and the judge might differ largely on this? MOO

 

[LinasK]

The judge IMO, gave the DA's the forbidden second bite of the apple, by allowing the removal of the first count, after the jury was hung, and going for just the second count. You cannot try a defendant twice. THAT is the issue. Double Jeopardy.

If they ( state) did it correctly, they should never have allowed the second count to be contingent on the first. They gambled, they overcharged, and lost ( mistrial/ hung jury) ....and the judge gave them a second chance and offered up the once bitten apple. Unconstitutional and WRONG .

All my own opinion. IANAL

He wasn't tried twice and the lesser charge isn't contingent on the higher charge. Nor is it overcharging.

 

[Sundog]

I understand that he is considered a victim. But so are the others on the train. They were all victims too.

I do understand, very well, about having a loved one with mental health issues. My little brother was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia back in the 70's. Our family spent decades on that roller coaster with him, trying to make sure he stayed on his meds. It didn't always work, he did go off them at times with bad results. And attaining 'forced treatment' is impossible unless the patient has done something violent already.

One time my brother took my Stepdad's comfy living room chair outside in the back, and stabbed it a hundred times with an ice pick. We called for help and they did nothing but shake their heads and tell us to 'be careful.'

The only one who could get through to him was Mom, who could usually convince him to keep taking his meds. It took a lot out of her to keep on him like that, but she felt the responsibility to do so. We all felt that responsibility.But my parents did lock their bedroom door with a deadbolt at night.

As a society, we need to stop normalising violent outbursts. If someone shouts death threats at people in an enclosed space, they should be taken for treatment, imo. It should not be allowed to continue as if it is OK, and as if we should all just ignore that kind of violent behaviour. IMO

I'm sorry that your family went through this. Thank you for sharing your experience and perspective to help us better understand.

 

[Donswife48]

Nonetheless, NY law is what counts- not just any talking head legal eagle's opinion from anywhere else around the country.

Andrew C. McCarthy III is an American lawyer and columnist for National Review. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

 

[Sillybilly]

Andrew C. McCarthy III is an American lawyer and columnist for National Review. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Sorry, you need to link to where Andrew C. McCarthy III said whatever you were referring to ... not just tell us he said it.