


Daniel Penny Manslaughter Charge Dismissed in Jordan Neely Case
Update on Daniel Penny's trial as the judge dismisses the manslaughter charge, allowing jury to consider criminally negligent homicide instead.

Just In: Major Charge Dismissed in Daniel Penny Case

Western Journal

Judge Drops Manslaughter Charge Against Daniel Penny After Jury Deadlocks

Washington Free Beacon

Jury deadlocked in NYC chokehold death case as lawyers consider next steps

Straight Arrow News

Jury Struggles as Problem Strikes Daniel Penny Case

Western Journal
Overview
In the trial of Daniel Penny, accused of fatally choking Jordan Neely, the judge dismissed the second-degree manslaughter charge at prosecutors' request. The jury, unable to reach consensus on manslaughter, will now deliberate on criminally negligent homicide, which has a maximum sentence of four years. The decision follows Penny's assertion of self-defense against Neely, a homeless man behaving erratically. Key issues include jury interpretation of 'reasonable person' and the impact of race and public safety on the case. Deliberations will resume on Monday.
Content generated by AI—learn more or report issue.

Get both sides in 5 minutes with our daily newsletter.
Analysis
- The dismissal of the manslaughter charge highlights systemic issues within the legal system, particularly in cases that intertwine allegations of excessive force with racial dynamics and mental health considerations.
- Prosecutors maintain that Daniel Penny's chokehold on Jordan Neely was not a justified reaction to a perceived threat, suggesting that even in situations where some may view actions as protective, the law must hold individuals accountable for excessive use of force.
- This case underscores critical societal conversations on public safety and the intersectionality of race, mental health, and vigilantism, pressing for reform in how the legal system intersects with marginalized communities.
Analysis unavailable for this viewpoint.
- The court's decision to dismiss the manslaughter charge bolsters the narrative that Daniel Penny acted in self-defense and to protect others on the subway, reinforcing his reputation as a Good Samaritan rather than a criminal.
- The ruling suggests that the prosecution was unable to substantiate its claims against Penny, indicating a potential influence of political motivations rather than a strong legal case, raising concerns about the fairness of the judicial process.
- Public sentiment largely supports Penny, viewing him as a hero for intervening in a dangerous situation, and voices from various sectors, including local leaders, emphasize the need for citizens to protect one another amid rising crime rates.
Articles (35)
Center (12)
No highlight available for this article.


No highlight available for this article.


No highlight available for this article.


No highlight available for this article.


No highlight available for this article.


No highlight available for this article.


No highlight available for this article.


No highlight available for this article.


No highlight available for this article.


No highlight available for this article.


No highlight available for this article.

No highlight available for this article.

History
- 7M4 articles
- 7M6 articles