The VERY telling question Daniel Penny jury asked within an hour of deliberations that may hint at verdict

The jury deliberating over the Daniel Penny trial asked for a second read through of what is considered justifiable in the case shortly after being sent out. 

A little over an hour after deliberations started, the jury of seven women and five men asked to again hear a specific portion of the judge’s instructions on justification defenses.

They are weighing manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide charges against Daniel Penny who used a fatal chokehold to restrain Jordan Neely on the New York City subway.

To convict, prosecutors say that Penny’s use of lethal force must be considered unjustifiable and that he acted recklessly when he subdued Neely to the point of death.

His attorney’s argue that Penny, 26, was only trying to protect others in the subway car in May 2023. The Marine veteran has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

After listening to the judge’s instructions again, jurors continued deliberations for 90 minutes before heading home for the day without reaching a verdict.

Neely died on the floor of the uptown-bound F train in Manhattan after Penny placed him in a chokehold for six minutes to stop him threatening commuters.

Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran on Tuesday displayed a graphic photo of inside Neely’s eye, taken during an autopsy after his death, which shocked the room.

The image was blasted across four screens – two facing the jury, a third facing the viewing gallery and a fourth directly in front of the defendant.

Meanwhile Penny’s lawyer tore into the prosecution after journalists were peppered with emails from the DA’s office ordering them to include certain details in their stories.

In his closing arguments defense attorney Steven Raiser pointed out no expert witness during the trial could prove key elements beyond reasonable doubt.

He also accused the government of bowing to public pressure, and feeling compelled to make a quick arrest due to the media attention in the case.

Yoran on Tuesday warned the jury their verdict should not rely upon whether they themselves would be grateful for Penny’s intervention, or weigh testimony from his loved ones that he is a ‘good man.’

‘What is so tragic about this case, is that even though the defendant started out doing the right thing… a man died,’ she said.

‘He was given all the signs he needed to stop. He ignored them. He must be held accountable for that.’

She continued: ‘You’re not here to decide whether you’d want to ride alone on the train with Jordan Neely.

‘That is not what this case is about. The only thing you need to determine here is whether or not the evidence here proves the defendant killed Jordan Neely.’

Yoran implored the jury to find Penny guilty of manslaughter – a charge which carries a maximum term of 15 years behind bars.

She told jurors in great detail how Mr Neely ‘clawed at his own neck with his nails’ as he fought against the chokehold in those crucial first few minutes, before ultimately urinating on himself and losing consciousness.

She described the negligent homicide charge – the lesser of the two – as essentially a fallback charge which should be applied if the jury is not convinced Penny committed manslaughter.

Sharing footage of Penny standing to the side of the train immediately after ending the chokehold, Yoran asked jurors to consider why he felt comfortable at this point in stepping away.

‘Why is he not concerned about that, all of a sudden? Because he knows Mr Neely is no longer a threat. That he is out.

‘If the defendant believed that all he had done was render Mr Neely temporarily unconscious, he would have immediately moved to secure him in another way because he would have believed Mr Neely would wake up at any second and either attack someone or run away.

‘If he was going to have revived, he would have revived in a matter of seconds. The defendant clearly knows Mr Neely is not waking up any time soon.

‘There is only one explanation for that: he knows Mr Neely is not going to wake up. He knows he has eliminated the threat.’

Yafna also cited Penny’s Marine Corps training, arguing that he should have had a clearer understanding of the risks of his actions given his military experience

Defense attorney Steven Raiser told jurors that closing first put his case at a slight disadvantage – because he would have no further opportunity to respond to the claims Yoran would make in her own closing arguments.

As such, he urged jurors to consider what he and his legal team would say in response if given the opportunity, based on the evidence presented.

He had earlier asked jurors to imagine they themselves were on the train when Neely approached.

Raiser argued that even the state’s own expert witnesses couldn’t prove key elements beyond reasonable doubt.

‘If their own experts have doubt… why shouldn’t you?’ He asked the 12 jurors who have listened to four weeks of intense testimony.

Raiser showed footage of the train carriage and used audio of train doors opening and closing, helping to set the scene he was trying to get jurors to envision.

Raiser described those commuters as ‘frozen in fear.’ He told jurors there was an obvious reason that there was no footage of Neely’s outburst – they were too scared to move.

Raiser quoted experts and witnesses who testified during the trial. He reminded the jurors that Neely was described as being ‘severely psychotic cases.

Neely had struggled with depression, schizophrenia and drug use after his mother was strangled during his teen years.  

He also noted that Neely had synthetic drugs in his system and that first responders opted to issue Narcan, used to reverse the effects of opioids, before they administered CPR.

Both charges are felonies. Neither carries mandatory prison time, but both carry the possibility of it – up to 15 years for manslaughter, or four for criminally negligent homicide.

Deliberations will resume Wednesday.