The fate of a 26-year-old former Marine, Daniel Penny, is presently in the hands of a Manhattan jury. In the coming weeks, they will determine whether Penny should serve jail time for implementing a lethal chokehold on another person, continuing to constrict his neck for roughly six minutes in a subway. He faces charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in connection to the death of Jordan Neely, a homeless individual. Witnesses recount Neely vocally expressing his hunger and his preparedness to go to jail while traveling on the F train in May 2023.
According to the Manhattan DA’s office, Penny ought to have been aware that his chokehold could endanger Neely’s life. However, the defendant’s legal counsel argues that Penny was endeavoring to protect other subway travelers who felt threatened. They insist Penny had no intention of causing harm or death. A video capturing several minutes of the chokehold and its aftermath circulated rapidly following Neely’s death, revealing sharp divides in the existing discourse on homelessness, mental health, and subway safety.
The incident with Penny was met with mixed reactions from the public. A section of the public lauded Penny as a protector and contributed to a crowdfunding initiative that accumulated millions for his legal defense. Conversely, another faction saw Penny as a self-appointed, excessively zealous enforcer. Safety on the subway, particularly in relation to crime, has been an enduring concern in recent years, a fear that was only exacerbated as passenger numbers dwindled during the pandemic.
Several widely reported instances of violence perpetrated by individuals with serious mental illnesses, whether on subway platforms or inside trains, have further fueled anxieties. Despite this, research has indicated that it is infrequent for individuals with severe mental health issues to carry out violent crimes. Legal experts anticipate that the jury’s viewpoint on subway safety will play a pivotal role in the outcome of the case.
The prosecution is set to scrutinize the choices made by Penny in the lead-up to Neely’s death. Certain aspects of the events remain largely unknown, thus fueling the intrigue. It is asserted that Penny maintained his restraint on Neely even after the subway reached the Broadway-Lafayette station, permitted passengers to disembark, and even after Neely ceased motion. Moreover, Penny was reportedly cautioned by a fellow passenger that his actions could result in Neely’s death if he did not promptly release his hold.
For Penny’s defense, the broader circumstances on the subway that day are likely to come into focus—factors that may have influenced Penny’s decision to subdue Neely with a chokehold. In a motion submitted last year to have the case dismissed, Penny’s legal team painted a picture of a subway car engulfed by terror after Neely boarded. They quoted passengers describing Neely’s behavior as menacing and devilish, claiming he issued threats of impending death and verbalized readiness to serve time in Rikers Prison.
Statements from long-term subway riders were also submitted by Penny’s defense team. They recalled a female commuter’s testimony to the grand jury, in which she narrated her numerous encounters on the train, none of which incited fear in her, as did Neely’s presence on that fateful day.
Drilling down on the details of the case, Neely’s mental health background is another key aspect. Court documents reveal that Neely had been clinically diagnosed with schizophrenia and was a user of synthetic cannabinoids, commonly referred to as K-2.
The incident involving Neely’s death sparked contentious discussions about the city’s approach in dealing with individuals living with severe mental health conditions, especially those who use the subway. The incident has also brought forward questions concerning safety measures in the subway system—a place where the city’s diverse population crosses paths daily.
At the Broadway-Lafayette station on a recent evening, a long-time New York resident, Nadya Belov, reflected on the case. She expressed ambivalence about what her decision would be if she was serving as a juror on Penny’s case. Her main concern? She needed to thoroughly examine the evidence because she wasn’t present at the scene and does not have firsthand knowledge of what transpired.
Uncertainties abound regarding the case, and two polarizing stances have emerged in the public discourse. The trial could set a precedent and impact future discussions on security, mental health, and homelessness, particularly within the city’s transit system.
While the trial continues, New York City residents and frequent subway commuters like Belov are left navigating their daily commutes amidst underlying anxieties. For many, the outcome of this case can shed light on their own understanding of the situation and influence their behavior and feelings towards using the subway.
The psychological narratives of the participants, the legal positions, varying public perceptions, and the broader subway environment at the time—all these factors are now tightly woven into a complex tapestry that the jury must unravel to arrive at a judgement. As they dissect the evidence and weigh the implications, the city and its residents wait with bated breath for the verdict.