Daniel Penny on Trial for manslaughter and negligent homicide of Jordan Neely

[Izzylizzy]

Whoa. I was expecting a verdict before Thanksgiving. Wishful (wishbone!) thinking, I guess.

jmo

You don't want to rush the jury.
Monday closing then there could be motions that could hold up Monday and then parts of Tuesday etc.

jmo

 

[Inthedetails]

You don't want to rush the jury.
Monday closing then there could be motions that could hold up Monday and then parts of Tuesday etc.

jmo

I know, I know....but I wanted this done.

jmo

 

[sunspun]

I don't understand why anyone would consider a person who is aggressive to not be a threat. How did you know he didn't have means to harm you? This is the exact reason why DP stepped into action to defuse the threat that Neeley clearly shouted when he entered the subway. As a woman, I'm shocked that I should be required to wait until attacked. Nonsense, I want someone, to recognize a threat to me and to act. JMO

I'm curious what you would've thought if Penny had had a gun on him and instead of taking Neeley down in a chokehold, if he had pulled out his gun and shot him in the head instead. Would you still feel like Penny did the right thing then?

 

[Izzylizzy]

I know, I know....but I wanted this done.

jmo

I'll be giving thanks for the passenger's videos.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Since next week is off, the jurors have a lot of time to digest what they saw & heard in court.
I do wonder if they'll have questions, reach a verdict in short order, or how things will go.
It's a heavy thing to decide a man's freedom or life. I don't envy them, that's for sure.

jmo

 

[LinasK]

After reading what defense's expert witness said, I have reasonable doubt as well.
While everyone has a right to an opinion, obviously, the two experts testifying are clearly not in agreement.

If the experts don't agree, that's basically the definition of reasonable doubt for any rational person humbly admitting the experts know far more than non experts.

"such doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hesitate before acting in a matter of importance" Legal Definition of REASONABLE DOUBT

Not necessarily when one expert isn't credible. In the murder trial of Scott Peterson, for example, the jury didn''t find the gynecologist expert for the defense credible. He based estimation of conception on the date of a journal entry.

 

[Inthedetails]

After reading what defense's expert witness said, I have reasonable doubt as well.
While everyone has a right to an opinion, obviously, the two experts testifying are clearly not in agreement.

If the experts don't agree, that's basically the definition of reasonable doubt for any rational person humbly admitting the experts know far more than non experts.

"such doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hesitate before acting in a matter of importance" Legal Definition of REASONABLE DOUBT

I'm thinking the jury members have ridden subway trains and that experience will help form their decision. I honestly think their knowledge of the subway doors opening - not conflicting expert testimony - will be crucial in their deliberations.

When the doors opened and when JN was on the ground, the threat ended, but the chokehold didn't.

But, we'll find out what the jury thinks in December. See you then.

jmo

 

[Izzylizzy]

I'm curious what you would've thought if Penny had had a gun on him and instead of taking Neeley down in a chokehold, if he had pulled out his gun and shot him in the head instead. Would you still feel like Penny did the right thing then?

My 2 cents is no matter what DP did to JN that rendered him dead it wouldn't matter to those who believe that the results from DP just stopping JN from possibly hurting someone was the justification for JN's death.
jmo

 

[Izzylizzy]

This is excellent news.
If I was on the jury that 30 min video would be front and center in the deliberation room.
jmo

11.10. Exhibits to the Jury (CPL 310.20 [1])​

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/11-REAL-DEMONSTRATIVE/11.10_EXHIBITS_TO_JURY.pdf

Rule 11.17 permits the trial court, in its discretion, to provide a deliberating jury with “any exhibits received in evidence.” (See People v Bouton, 50 NY2d ...

 

[Lilibet]

The woman and children on the subway were definitely in danger from Neely. He had a record of assaulting women in the past and could have done it again if not stopped. JMO.

Jordan Neely: What happened in NYC subway chokehold case?

Video shows Daniel Penny with his arms around Jordan Neely's neck for about two minutes and 55 seconds.

www.bbc.com

Nobody here has suggested that Mr Penny should not have stopped Mr Neely or used a chokehold briefly as it’s intended. He is not charged with simply stopping or restraining Mr Neely. He is charged with using a chokehold to the point of killing him when he had help and was warned he was killing him.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

What's he got, sobs and tears?
He can't answer the questions he would be asked by the prosecution with that 30 min interrogation video that was entered as evidence.
The jury would see that he's a liar if they haven't already.
jmo

I don't think there would've been any tears, DP comes across as pretty unemotional and unmoved by Neely's death.
It's a tough one, because I think the jury might have expected to hear from him and that could sway them somewhat. Of course he has a right to not testify, and for that not to be held against him, but in this particular case I do think a jury would want to hear his side from him and they may very well wonder why he didn't choose to give it.

From the defence point of view, I think they knew that putting him on the stand was a bad idea that could backfire spectacularly, personally I do t think he would come across as a sympathetic witness, both due to his demeanour and the prosecution would likely tie him up in knots.

As @Ontario Mom said, damned either way.

 

[IDK]

This is excellent news.
If I was on the jury that 30 min video would be front center in the deliberation room.
jmo

11.10. Exhibits to the Jury (CPL 310.20 [1])​

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/11-REAL-DEMONSTRATIVE/11.10_EXHIBITS_TO_JURY.pdf

Rule 11.17 permits the trial court, in its discretion, to provide a deliberating jury with “any exhibits received in evidence.” (See People v Bouton, 50 NY2d ...

I’ll be interested to hear the jury instructions.

I’ve seen it go both ways. Sometimes the judge instructs the jury that evidence such as a video needs to be watched back in the court room, not in the deliberation room.

Has the judge already ruled on this?

All IMO.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I'm curious how much a defendant's demeanor affects jurors?

 

[Izzylizzy]

I’ll be interested to hear the jury instructions.

I’ve seen it go both ways. Sometimes the judge instructs the jury that evidence such as a video needs to be watched back in the court room, not in the deliberation room.

Has the judge already ruled on this?

All IMO.

IIRC:
That all comes after closing when the judge instructs the jury before they enter into deliberations.

 

[acutename]

I'm curious how much a defendant's demeanor affects jurors?

could be a lot... remember how objectionable people found Amber Heard to be?IMO. they are also asked to make a big decision with just a little slice of this person's life so I think they would be attentive to anything... if they were fully engaged. All IMO but attys make a big deal about clothing, facial expressions, etc.

 

[Lilibet]

"Daniel Penny won’t testify on his own behalf in lightning-rod manslaughter trial — as defense rests with testimony about Jordan Neely’s open warrant" Daniel Penny won’t testify on his own behalf in lightning-rod manslaughter trial — as defense rests with testimony about Jordan Neely’s open warrant

I'm somewhat disappointed he didn't testify. Although I guess maybe he's in the darned-if-you-do-darned-if-you-don't category on this one.

You answered my question before I asked it but I’ll ask others who don’t believe Mr Penny is guilty…”Do you wish he had testified or are you glad he didn’t?”

Personally, as someone who believes he is guilty, I would have liked to have heard him testify as I wanted to know what he was thinking when he was warned he could kill Mr Neely. But I think he was smart not to testify.

 

[mickey2942]

Interesting move. Kyle Rittenhouse did testify in his trial. But, there is a huge difference between Penny and Rittenhouse.

 

[Izzylizzy]

could be a lot... remember how objectionable people found Amber Heard to be?IMO. they are also asked to make a big decision with just a little slice of this person's life so I think they would be attentive to anything... if they were fully engaged. All IMO but attys make a big deal about clothing, facial expressions, etc.

DP's suits sure were tailored perfectly.
The perks of a 3+ million war chest, eh?

The defense repeatedly spoke about DP's indifference throughout, including the highly offensive images of DP standing at a distance from the lifeless body of Jordan Neely he l just left on a dirty subway car floor.
So..DP's stoic,emotionless,cold appearance at the defense table during the trial may reinforce his indifference claimed by the prosecutor.
That is definitely not something you want to convey to a jury.
Though I don't think it's an act that DP was able to pull off in relation to JN and his death.

I see it as he believes he just took some excess garbage out and put it in front of his neighbors house and is being inconvenienced now because someone had the audacity to video him doing so.
JMO

 

[Lilibet]

The defense repeatedly spoke about DP's indifference throughout

I know you mean the prosecution just to clarify.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Interesting move. Kyle Rittenhouse did testify in his trial. But, there is a huge difference between Penny and Rittenhouse.

I think that there was enough reasonable doubt and they had his interrogation video so they didn’t think they needed him to take the stand… moo