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

[Donswife48]

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.

Having served on several juries before, we were instructed not to read news about the case, talk about the case to others even in our homes, and not do research. A jury member on one case I was seated on went to the scene of the accident to see the location. She told us what she saw, we had to report her, and she was reprimanded. When the jury is sent to deliberations, we elected a foreman, then we reviewed all the evidence produced. Only then did we take an informal vote to see if we were in agreement. I would expect this would be followed on a case of greater importance. JMO

 

[lonetraveler]

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?

You pretty much nailed how deliberations are done.

 

[Snoopster]

"In February, Mr. Neely, who had been in jail on an assault charge for punching a 67-year-old woman and breaking several bones in her face..."

No two ways about it, that man was a dangerous, violent criminal. I'm sorry he died. I'm sorry he didn't get whatever mental health help he really needed. I'm sorry Penny ran into him that day. The whole thing is a rotten disaster that could have been avoided, had the "system" that had Neely on a watch list, actually worked.

jmo

I'm not sure why this is relevant to this case.
The case is about someone choking someone, who they didn't know, long enough to kill them. DP didn't know JN's background. DP did choke the victim long enough to cause his death, despite people asking him to stop.
You can't go back in time to find info that no one on the train knew, and say, "see, it's ok since he deserved to die".
JMO

 

[IDK]

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

Very interesting……

 

[GRT]

I'm not sure why this is relevant to this case.
The case is about someone choking someone, who they didn't know, long enough to kill them. DP didn't know JN's background. DP did choke the victim long enough to cause his death, despite people asking him to stop.
You can't go back in time to find info that no one on the train knew, and say, "see, it's ok since he deserved to die".
JMO

It’s relevant because Brian Kempf, the final witness, testified about why JN had an open arrest warrant. MOO, it was to establish the level of aggression JN was capable of so the jury would understand how serious the threat from JN was before DP stepped in.

 

[Lilibet]

It’s relevant because Brian Kempf, the final witness, testified about why JN had an open arrest warrant. MOO, it was to establish the level of aggression JN was capable of so the jury would understand how serious the threat from JN was before DP stepped in.

But Mr Penny didn’t know about the open arrest warrant, so he was only acting based on how he interpreted the threat Mr Neely’s words and actions presented in that moment, not what his history was. That immediate threat was enough for Mr Penny to decide to act.

But the arrest warrant is irrelevant because, again, Mr Penny is not charged with stepping in to defuse the threat. He is charged with continuing the chokehold, which even LE isn’t allowed to use, to the point of death for Mr Neely. This is considered to be reckless and criminally negligent with regard to human life. That’s all the jury needs to decide. Was he or wasn’t he. Period. Everything else is a distraction to confuse the issue.

JMO

 

[Rolypolyoly]

But Mr Penny didn’t know about the open arrest warrant, so he was only acting based on how he interpreted the threat Mr Neely’s words and actions presented in that moment, not what his history was. That immediate threat was enough for Mr Penny to decide to act.

But the arrest warrant is irrelevant because, again, Mr Penny is not charged with stepping in to defuse the threat. He is charged with continuing the chokehold, which even LE isn’t allowed to use, to the point of death for Mr Neely. This is considered to be reckless and criminally negligent with regard to human life. That’s all the jury needs to decide. Was he or wasn’t he. Period. Everything else is a distraction to confuse the issue.

JMO

This is exactly what I expect to hear in closing from the prosecution.

 

[Inthedetails]

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?

I'll take a stab at this from a local point of view. The case is not the talk of the town.

The interest in this case it terms of supporting DP seems to be from outside Manhattan, inflamed, IMO, by the NYPost. jmo

My impression of local opinion is yes, we don't want troubled people on the subways scaring or hurting passengers. Of course not! Standing up to a menace can get support, though most people just want to mind their own business on the train and get where they need to go. **AND** we really, really do not want people killing others on the trains. The idea of choking someone to death on the subway floor is not something that gets support.

Instead, I see sympathy for the victim (even knowing his troubled life) and an expectation of a guilty verdict, though nobody that I know* is "waiting" for the verdict - they'll read the headline when it happens. I don't see interest in wanting to know every detail of the trial and I can't even imagine talking to a neighbor about expressions on jurors' faces - they would think I had gone nuts.

Nationally, I think the lack of coverage is because there isn't a pretty woman or girl involved.

My personal experience, no link.

jmo

* except me, lol.

 

[Inthedetails]

It’s relevant because Brian Kempf, the final witness, testified about why JN had an open arrest warrant. MOO, it was to establish the level of aggression JN was capable of so the jury would understand how serious the threat from JN was before DP stepped in.

DP is not on trial for stepping in. He's on trial for manslaughter and negligent homicide.

jmo

 

[Ontario Mom]

I'm not sure why this is relevant to this case.
The case is about someone choking someone, who they didn't know, long enough to kill them. DP didn't know JN's background. DP did choke the victim long enough to cause his death, despite people asking him to stop.
You can't go back in time to find info that no one on the train knew, and say, "see, it's ok since he deserved to die".
JMO

Literally no one on this thread, ever, has stated JN deserved to die. The accusation is quite insulting.

Why JN's violent criminal past is relevant to this case, is because it was that violent intention he was shouting about, when DP attempted to restrain him and prevent him from acting out what he'd threatened to do. While the charges against DP have to do with HIS behavior on the train that day and the result of that ending with JN's death, this case would have never even existed, were it not for JN's violent criminal history. Stating that JN instigated this confrontation is NOT saying he deserved to die, it's merely stating the facts.

jmo

 

[Leilei]

It’s relevant because Brian Kempf, the final witness, testified about why JN had an open arrest warrant. MOO, it was to establish the level of aggression JN was capable of so the jury would understand how serious the threat from JN was before DP stepped in.

JN isn't on trial here, and even if he had been picked up on that warrant, his charges didn't warrant a death sentence.
No proof anywhere that I've seen that JN physically touched anyone on that train. Plenty of proof that DP did, though, as we've all seen, and that's why HE is on trial. If JN had survived, and had been arrested that day, he would maybe have gotten a menacing charge, or public nuisance. But instead of waiting for authorities to get there, DP decided to be judge, jury and executioner.
<modsnip>
IMO MOO and all that jazz.

 

[Snoopster]

Literally no one on this thread, ever, has stated JN deserved to die. The accusation is quite insulting.

Why JN's violent criminal past is relevant to this case, is because it was that violent intention he was shouting about, when DP attempted to restrain him and prevent him from acting out what he'd threatened to do. While the charges against DP have to do with HIS behavior on the train that day and the result of that ending with JN's death, this case would have never even existed, were it not for JN's violent criminal history. Stating that JN instigated this confrontation is NOT saying he deserved to die, it's merely stating the facts.

jmo

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that anyone here said he deserved to die. I worded that poorly.
But my main point is that people keep bringing up his violent history, as if it was relevant to the case. It is not. It may be of explanatory value to understand why JN acted the way he did that day, but JN is not on trial. The victim is not on trial.

You said that "were it not for JN's violent criminal history that this case wouldn't have existed. But that's not necessarily true. What if this was his first time acting aggressively? The outcome would have been the same. DP would have acted the same since he didn't know JN's history.

 

[Inthedetails]

I'm not sure why this is relevant to this case.
The case is about someone choking someone, who they didn't know, long enough to kill them. DP didn't know JN's background. DP did choke the victim long enough to cause his death, despite people asking him to stop.
You can't go back in time to find info that no one on the train knew, and say, "see, it's ok since he deserved to die".
JMO

The victim's troubled life is not relevant to the charges the defendant is facing. The question the jury will ask is, in short, did DP recklessly cause the death of JN in those minutes on the floor of the subway? They will not be asking the history of JN's troubled life. in my opinion.

jmo

 

[shotgun09]

The victim's troubled life is not relevant to the charges the defendant is facing. The question the jury will ask is, in short, did DP recklessly cause the death of JN in those minutes on the floor of the subway? They will not be asking the history of JN's troubled life. in my opinion.

jmo

I agree with the question posed in your post, RBBM.

It is my opinion also that the judge in this case allowed some brief facts regarding JN's history to be entered during trial, as the laws would apply. True, the jury won't hear the extent of his history, but they were shown a smidgen of proof and evidence that can be used during deliberations. The closing arguments ought to be interesting. It's too bad we won't get to hear them fully.

MOO and Peace

 

[Inthedetails]

I agree with the question posed in your post, RBBM.

It is my opinion also that the judge in this case allowed some brief facts regarding JN's history to be entered during trial, as the laws would apply. True, the jury won't hear the extent of his history, but they were shown a smidgen of proof and evidence that can be used during deliberations. The closing arguments ought to be interesting. It's too bad we won't get to hear them fully.

MOO and Peace

My guess is some info about JN was allowed in order to show why DP took him down in the first place.

JN was unhinged with a troubled background. If that info wasn't allowed, it could look like DP simply walked up to JN for no reason, pinned him, and choked him. That would be an unfair description.

There was a reason DP intervened and it's fair to present that reason.

But the question will be what DP did on the floor while choking JN. Was he knowingly reckless in those minutes?

jmo

 

[Ontario Mom]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that anyone here said he deserved to die. I worded that poorly.
But my main point is that people keep bringing up his violent history, as if it was relevant to the case. It is not. It may be of explanatory value to understand why JN acted the way he did that day, but JN is not on trial. The victim is not on trial.

You said that "were it not for JN's violent criminal history that this case wouldn't have existed. But that's not necessarily true. What if this was his first time acting aggressively? The outcome would have been the same. DP would have acted the same since he didn't know JN's history.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

As to the "what if", I can't speak to that. I can only comment on what did happen and I'll just leave it at that.

 

[lonetraveler]

I'm not sure why this is relevant to this case.
The case is about someone choking someone, who they didn't know, long enough to kill them. DP didn't know JN's background. DP did choke the victim long enough to cause his death, despite people asking him to stop.
You can't go back in time to find info that no one on the train knew, and say, "see, it's ok since he deserved to die".
JMO

But, and that is a major But, DP did know what JN was doing at the present time, and that is that he was jumping on a subcar, throwing things on the floor and announcing that he wasn't afraid to go to Rikers and I'm sure IMO that he announced that he wasn't afraid to die. Then he lunged at people, no more than six inches from their faces. It was a definite threat. Instead of waiting to be reactive, thank God that someone decided to be interactive and try to protect the people on that subway car.

 

[Lilibet]

But, and that is a major But, DP did know what JN was doing at the present time, and that is that he was jumping on a subcar, throwing things on the floor and announcing that he wasn't afraid to go to Rikers and I'm sure IMO that he announced that he wasn't afraid to die. Then he lunged at people, no more than six inches from their faces. It was a definite threat. Instead of waiting to be reactive, thank God that someone decided to be interactive and try to protect the people on that subway car.

I’ll just quote my earlier reply to GRT in case you didn’t see it.

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

Nov 24, 2024

It’s relevant because Brian Kempf, the final witness, testified about why JN had an open arrest warrant. MOO, it was to establish the level of aggression JN was capable of so the jury would understand how serious the threat from JN was before DP stepped in.

But Mr Penny didn’t know about the open arrest warrant, so he was only acting based on how he interpreted the threat Mr Neely’s words and actions presented in that moment, not what his history was. That immediate threat was enough for Mr Penny to decide to act.

But the arrest warrant is irrelevant because, again, Mr Penny is...

• Lilibet

• 
• 

We agree that Mr Penny acted based on what Mr Neely was doing right then and there.

But Mr Penny didn’t know about the open arrest warrant, so he was only acting based on how he interpreted the threat Mr Neely’s words and actions presented in that moment, not what his history was. That immediate threat was enough for Mr Penny to decide to act.

But the arrest warrant is irrelevant because, again, Mr Penny is not charged with stepping in to defuse the threat. He is charged with continuing the chokehold, which even LE isn’t allowed to use, to the point of death for Mr Neely. This is considered to be reckless and criminally negligent with regard to human life. That’s all the jury needs to decide. Was he or wasn’t he. Period. Everything else is a distraction to confuse the issue.

JMO

However, Mr Penny being a hero initially does not excuse holding the chokehold to the point of Mr Neely’s death. <modsnip> It’s possible to think Mr Penny did the right thing initially but did the wrong thing thereafter, as I do. The two opinions are not contradictory.

 

[Snoopster]

But, and that is a major But, DP did know what JN was doing at the present time, and that is that he was jumping on a subcar, throwing things on the floor and announcing that he wasn't afraid to go to Rikers and I'm sure IMO that he announced that he wasn't afraid to die. Then he lunged at people, no more than six inches from their faces. It was a definite threat. Instead of waiting to be reactive, thank God that someone decided to be interactive and try to protect the people on that subway car.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with your comment.
BUT, DP is not on trial for intervening and taking JN down. He is on trial for going too far. For continuing the chokehold after the risk was gone and people asked him to stop.

 

[GRT]

But the arrest warrant is irrelevant because, again, Mr Penny is not charged with stepping in to defuse the threat. He is charged with continuing the chokehold, which even LE isn’t allowed to use, to the point of death for Mr Neely. This is considered to be reckless and criminally negligent with regard to human life. That’s all the jury needs to decide. Was he or wasn’t he. Period. Everything else is a distraction to confuse the issue.

Respectfully snipped by me for focus...

I don't know why the judge allowed the admission of the arrest warrant--but because he did, we're allowed to discuss it.

I agree that DP could have been a hero at first but then went too far. That's a *possible scenario* in the realm of scenarios, but I don't think it happened.

The jury heard testimony that a sleeper-type chokehold, or blood choke, which is what DP was using, could kill someone very quickly--before a minute even. To me, that indicates DP was not using full force on JN's neck but rather just restraining him. I think that's also why he had his legs around JN -- he could have restrained him with just the chokehold, but he put his legs around him, which also allowed DP to use less pressure around the neck.

Because JN didn't go unconscious in just a few seconds, I feel DP was using restraint and not applying deadly pressure.

That's why I think Dr. Chundru made the right call and Dr. Harris made an incorrect one.

Chundru explained that the restraint was one of the factors that led to JN's death -- but that's because JN was already in a state of anxiety, he was on drugs, he was schizophrenic, and he struggled violently against the restraining. It was his physical exertion -- similar to that of an athlete on a playing field who has SCT -- that led to the sickling event.

At first, I thought DP did something wrong, too, but now that Chundru testified, and I've watched the video several times, I think he is right.

Of course, that's all JMOO...

But, one interesting thing -- we're having more time to discuss this one than usual because the jury is taking quite a long holiday break!