However, a prosecutor argued that Penny “went way too far” in attempting to neutralize someone he viewed as a threat, failing to treat him as a fellow human being. In contrast, a defense attorney claimed that Penny acted with “courage,” prioritizing the safety of others when he placed Jordan Neely in a chokehold that ultimately left Neely limp on the ground.
Both sides presented their opening statements Friday in a manslaughter trial that highlights significant societal issues around race, homelessness, public safety, and the responsibilities of bystanders.
Penny’s critics paint him as a white vigilante who fatally attacked a Black man displaying erratic behavior and making dire statements without any weapon or direct assault on others in the subway car. Conversely, supporters argue that the 25-year-old Penny took necessary action to protect frightened riders—a response he claims was intended to defuse the situation rather than to kill.
Prosecutor Dafna Yoran emphasized to the jury that the trial isn’t meant to assess society’s failures in addressing mental illness and homelessness on public transit, nor the appropriateness of Penny’s intervention or his choice to use a chokehold.
“He used far too much force for far too long. He went way too far,” Yoran stated, accusing Penny of showing “indifference” toward Neely and a lack of recognition for his humanity.
In contrast, defense attorney Thomas Kenniff argued that Penny exerted only the necessary force to handle a “seething, psychotic” man who had allegedly lunged at a woman with a child, threatening, “I will kill.” He described Penny’s actions as a courageous response to protect those who could not safeguard themselves, stating, “It doesn’t make him a hero. But it doesn’t make him a killer.”
Jurors, who were asked earlier about their experiences on the subway, later watched police body camera footage showing officers performing lifesaving techniques on Neely. Penny was seen calmly explaining to officers that he had “put him out,” referring to Neely as a “crackhead” who was “going crazy.”
The case has become intertwined with the polarized political landscape in the United States. Republican officials have publicly supported Penny, while Democratic representatives attended Neely’s funeral. Both supporters and opponents of Penny have organized demonstrations, and he faced a handful of protesters upon arriving at the courthouse.
Inside the courtroom, Penny maintained a composed demeanor, seated upright and gazing straight ahead while a member of Neely’s family expressed grief in the audience. Family lawyer Donte Mills declared outside the court, “We know who the victim is in this case, and we know who the villain is.”
Neely’s struggles with mental illness and drug use were exacerbated by the tragic murder of his mother during his teenage years. He occasionally entertained subway riders as a Michael Jackson impersonator but had a criminal history, including an assault on a woman at a subway station.
Penny, an architecture student and Marine Corps veteran, encountered Neely on May 1, 2023, while heading to the gym after class. Witnesses described Neely as begging for money, expressing a willingness to die or go to jail, and making erratic movements.
Penny placed his arm around Neely’s neck, bringing him to the ground and maintaining the hold for approximately six minutes even as the train stopped at a station. Most passengers exited, leaving only two who assisted in restraining Neely, while another warned Penny to let go of him or he would die.
Kenniff asserted that Penny urged fellow passengers to call the police and kept hold of Neely due to his periodic struggles. Ultimately, Penny released Neely nearly one minute after he had gone limp, but despite having first aid training, he did not check Neely’s breathing or pulse.
Officers arrived approximately seven minutes after the 911 calls began, with varying reports describing Neely’s condition—ranging from harassment to being armed. After assessing Neely’s situation, the officers noted he had a faint pulse but was not breathing and proceeded with chest compressions and overdose-reversal medication without administering mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
When questioned about this decision, Sgt. Carl Johnson testified that Neely appeared “very dirty,” raising concerns about potential disease transmission or the possibility of Neely awakening and vomiting. Kenniff challenged this decision by asking if the officers would have proceeded with rescue breaths if they had a protective mask, to which Johnson replied, “No,” citing the importance of officer safety.
As Neely’s pulse diminished, Penny communicated to police that he aimed to “de-escalate” the situation, asserting that he intended to prevent Neely from harming anyone rather than inflict injury. The city’s medical examiners later concluded that Neely died from neck compression, a finding that Penny’s defense team disputes.
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Legal Expert
Time.news Editor (Jenna): Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Williams. With the ongoing trial of Daniel Penny, there’s a significant public interest in understanding the legal nuances at play. Can we start by clarifying the charges against him?
Dr. Williams (Legal Expert): Absolutely, Jenna. Daniel Penny is facing manslaughter charges in relation to the death of Jordan Neely, a Black man experiencing severe mental health issues. The prosecution argues that Penny used excessive force, resulting in Neely’s death following a chokehold that lasted for six minutes.
Jenna: And it seems that the case raises critical societal issues, particularly regarding race, homelessness, and public safety. What are your thoughts on how these elements intertwine in this case?
Dr. Williams: You’re right. This trial doesn’t just revolve around the actions of Daniel Penny but also reflects broader societal failures. The debate over race is significant; many view Penny’s actions through the lens of a white man asserting control over a Black individual in crisis. Additionally, Neely’s circumstances highlight the challenges surrounding mental health and homelessness in urban environments—issues that often don’t receive adequate attention until tragedies occur.
Jenna: Both the prosecutor and the defense are using very different narratives. The prosecution emphasizes Penny’s alleged indifference towards Neely, suggesting a failure to recognize him as a fellow human being. Meanwhile, the defense claims Penny acted heroically to protect others in a frightening situation. How do you interpret these conflicting viewpoints?
Dr. Williams: The stark contrast in narratives underscores the complexity of the case. The prosecutor, Dafna Yoran, is framing Penny’s response as a disproportionate use of force, which could set a dangerous precedent if unchecked vigilante action is excused under the guise of self-defense or protection. On the other hand, the defense paints Penny as a reluctant participant in a tense scenario—a narrative intended to evoke sympathy for a person trying to do the right thing amidst chaos. Ultimately, it will come down to how the jury perceives these competing stories.
Jenna: It’s also interesting to note that Penny has garnered support from some political factions while facing demonstrators against him. How does this dynamic impact the trial’s atmosphere?
Dr. Williams: The political polarization around this case is significant. It can affect jury perception, as jurors may be aware of public sentiment and media coverage. Both sides are invoking larger social narratives—about safety, race, and mental health—making it more than just a legal case; it’s become a social issue, with supporters rallying for Penny and others advocating for Neely and highlighting the need for better mental health intervention.
Jenna: Given that the jurors were asked about their experiences on the subway, how much do you think their personal experiences could factor into their decisions?
Dr. Williams: Personal experiences can heavily influence juror decisions. If jurors identify with the fear passengers might have felt or have had similar encounters with vulnerable populations in public spaces, it could bias their understanding of what constitutes a reasonable response to perceived threats. This is why jury selection and the questioning process are crucial in trials of this nature.
Jenna: One final question, as we wrap up. If you had to summarize the implications of this trial for society, what would you say?
Dr. Williams: This trial presents an opportunity for society to confront uncomfortable truths about race, mental illness, and social responsibility. It forces us to examine our priorities concerning public safety versus human rights. Beyond the verdict, the case could spark conversations about how we handle crises in public spaces and the need for systemic change to address the roots of homelessness and mental health crises, rather than relying on individuals to intervene in life-threatening situations.
Jenna: Thank you, Dr. Williams, for providing such insightful commentary on this complex and sensitive issue. We look forward to your continued analysis as the trial progresses.
Dr. Williams: Thank you for having me, Jenna. I appreciate the opportunity to delve deeper into this important case.