Jurors Set to Weigh Penny's Fate in Choking Case That Divided New York

A Divisive New York Legal Battle: Daniel Penny Manslaughter Case #

After seven weeks and over 40 witnesses, a Manhattan jury is on the brink of determining whether Daniel Penny, an ex-Marine, is guilty of manslaughter after he fatally choked a homeless man, Jordan Neely, last year in a subway car. As the final arguments unfold in a packed Manhattan courtroom, the case has divided public opinion, with some viewing Penny as a protector and others seeing him as deserving prosecution for the death.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers presented starkly different narratives. Penny’s attorneys portrayed him as a protector responding to a threat, arguing that the government is scapegoating him. They emphasized his intent to maintain safety, claimed he used a “civilian restraint,” and suggested Neely’s existing medical conditions—namely schizophrenia, synthetic marijuana use, and sickle cell trait—contributed to his death.

Conversely, the prosecution argued that Penny’s actions were no accident, and he was aware of their potential consequences due to his military training. They maintained that Penny committed a crime by continuing to choke Neely after any threat had passed, citing the medical examiner’s report that compression of the neck was the cause of death. The lack of remorse displayed during an interview on May 1 was highlighted as a key point against Penny.

The encounter occurred on a Manhattan F train when Neely began yelling about his desperation, prompting Penny to step in and apply the chokehold. Bystander video showed Neely struggling until the train stopped, yet Penny maintained his grip until Neely lost consciousness. If found guilty, Penny could face up to 15 years in prison, leaving jurors to decide on charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.