Defense attempts to paint Daniel Penny as a savior in closing arguments of his trial
Closing arguments began Monday in the trial of Daniel Penny over the May 2023 subway chokehold death of Jordan Neely.
Penny, a 25-year-old former Marine, put Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man, in a six-minute-long chokehold after Neely boarded a subway car acting erratically, according to police. Neely entered a subway car on an uptown F train at the Second Avenue stop, and was described by witnesses as yelling and moving erratically when Penny put Neely in a chokehold, officials said.
Penny is charged with manslaughter and negligent homicide in Neely's death. He pleaded not guilty.
He faces up to 15 years in prison if he's convicted of manslaughter. There is no minimum sentence.
The proceedings began late so the defense could fix two audio exhibits. The prosecutors alleged the defense had "willy nilly edited" the audio and "taken out what they don't like." Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran said it would be misleading for the jury to hear an edited excerpt.
The judge agreed, and the defense recut the exhibits, so jurors were clear they were hearing edited portions.
The delay means the jury will likely not begin deliberations until Tuesday. The People's closing will continue on Tuesday before the judge's hour-long instructions and deliberations.
To convict Penny of manslaughter the jury must be convinced Penny acted recklessly and grossly deviated from how a reasonable person would behave knowing the risk his conduct posed.
The prosecution's closing argument
"No one had to die on May 1, 2023," a prosecutor said Monday during her closing argument in the Daniel Penny trial.
The prosecutor, Dafna Yoran, conceded Jordan Neely entered the subway car in an "extremely threatening manner" but she argued "so much less than deadly physical force would have done the job of protecting the passengers from Mr. Neely."
Yoran has said Penny's initial intentions were "laudable," but he held on too long: "Daniel Penny, the defendant, could have easily restrained Jordan Neely without choking him to death," Yoran said in her closing argument.
Yoran called Neely's death "so tragically unnecessary," and, in her closing argument, she challenged the defense assertion that Jordan Neely posed a lingering threat to passengers even after he had been subdued on the subway floor for several minutes.
"Everyone the defendant wanted to protect had already left the train," Yoran said. "There is no justification for deadly physical force at this point."
Defense attorney Steve Raiser said during his summation that Penny had no choice but to keep hold of Neely because Neely was struggling to get free. Yoran said it did not justify Penny's action.
"We know why Mr. Neely is struggling. He's struggling to breathe," Yoran said. "Is a chokehold the only way the defendant could have held onto Mr. Neely at this point?"
If Penny intended to render Neely unconscious using a blood choke he learned in the Marine Corps, Yoran said Neely should have passed out after 15 seconds. When Neely did not pass out in that time, Penny should have known he was doing the maneuver incorrectly and continuing it could be fatal, she said.
"There's no accident here," Yoran said. "The defendant was all too aware of what the consequences could be."
She also questioned Penny's actions after he released the chokehold, pointing to a video that showed him walking away from Neely to retrieve his hat from beneath a subway bench.
"The defendant clearly knows Mr. Neely is not waking up any time soon," Yoran said. "He knows that he has eliminated the threat."
When an officer asked Penny what happened, Penny responded "I put him out," the video shows. "He shows no surprise or dismay," Yoran argued.
Three bystanders told Penny to stop applying a chokehold on Neely but Penny did not listen, a prosecutor said during summations.
"The defendant was warned three times, at least, and he ignored those warnings," prosecutor Dafna Yoran said. "He's consciously disregarding the risk."
While a bystander shook Neely, checked for a pulse and tried to put him into a recovery position, Yoran pointed out that Penny stood there doing nothing, as depicted on video.
"He just didn't recognize that Jordan Neely too was a person," Yoran said. "He simply saw him as a threat to be eliminated."
During the trial, Penny's mother and sister testified to his character but Yoran said Penny "seems to have a real blind spot" when it came to showing compassion for Neely, who he described on a police interrogation video as "doing what crackheads do."
The prosecutor said Penny showed no remorse, no regret and no self-reflection: "We have all spoken dismissively at some point about people like Jordan Neely," Yoran said. "When the defendant is talking like this about Mr. Neely he knows he very likely killed him."
The defense's closing arguments
The defense attorney, Steven Raiser, asked jurors in closing arguments to imagine they were on the train that day, conjuring the scene with sound effects of closing doors, a train pulling out of a station and police body camera footage of passengers saying Neely "scared the living daylights out of everybody."
A "violent and desperate" Jordan Neely entered the uptown F train on May 1, 2023, "filled with rage and not afraid of any consequences," causing passengers to be "frozen with fear" before Daniel Penny "acted to save those people," a defense attorney said Monday during closing arguments at Penny's manslaughter and negligent homicide trial.
In its summation, the defense challenged the prosecution's assertion that Penny held Neely in a chokehold for "way too long," and did not let go for almost six minutes. Raiser said Penny did not intend to kill Neely but did not let go because Neely was fighting back.
"Of course, he didn't. He had to remain in place out of fear that Neely would break free," Raiser said.
The city's medical examiner concluded Penny's chokehold killed Neely. The defense argued Neely died from a genetic condition and the synthetic marijuana found in his system.
Defense attorney Steve Raiser argued that Penny "was not applying a textbook Marine blood choke because his purpose was not to render Mr. Neely unconscious," Raiser said. Raiser said Penny applied a chokehold "in a less aggressive manner," reflecting his character.
"He could have squeezed Mr. Neely to unconsciousness," Raiser said. "Instead, he laid with him on the dirty subway floor while the smell of uncleanliness…and feces enveloped him."
The defense summation included an image of the two men on the subway floor: "It's basic human instinct to grab at the arm choking you. You don't see that here because Danny's not choking him," Raiser said.
Raiser argued Penny was not applying pressure on Neely's neck in the hold's final 51 seconds and the whole case represented a rush to judgment: "This was not a chokehold death," Raiser said. "They failed to prove their case, period."
During the trial
During the trial, prosecutors argued that Penny went "way too far," holding Neely around the neck for nearly six minutes, past the point when he posed a threat. About 30 seconds after Penny put Neely in the chokehold, the train arrived at the next station and many passengers left the train car, according to court filings.
Footage of the interaction between Penny and Neely, which began about 2 minutes after the incident started, captures Penny holding Neely for about 4 minutes and 57 seconds on a relatively empty train with a couple of passengers nearby.
Prosecutors argue that Penny should have known that his minutes-long chokehold was turning fatal.
Witness accounts of Neely's behavior that day differ.
In court filings, some passengers described their fear. One passenger said they "have encountered many things, but nothing that put fear into me like that." Another said Neely was making "half-lunge movements" and coming within a "half a foot of people," according to court filings.
Other passengers on the train that day said they didn't feel threatened -- one "wasn't really worried about what was going on" and another called it "like another day typically in New York. That's what I'm used to seeing. I wasn't really looking at it if I was going to be threatened or anything to that nature, but it was a little different because, you know, you don't really hear anybody saying anything like that."
Read the key takeaways presented to the jury during the weekslong trial here.
