In the first note of the day, the jury on Daniel Penny murder and negligent homicide The trial court reported that it could not “come to a unanimous vote” on whether Penny committed second-degree murder in Jordan Neely’s death. homeless manon the New York subway.
“We are requesting jury instructions from Judge Wiley. At this time, we are unable to reach a unanimous vote on the court,” the statement said.
Judge Maxwell Wiley charged Allen to the jury, which cites jury instructions given to a hung jury that encourages them to continue deliberating despite deadlock. It is giving lawyers time to consider next steps.
Penny’s attorney, Thomas Kenniff, unsuccessfully sought to have the trial thrown out, arguing that the Allen charge would be “coercive.”
Wiley disagreed, saying it was “too early” to declare a mistrial before encouraging the jury to continue deliberations.
Since the jury received the case on Tuesday, they have deliberated for more than 20 hours.
Penny, a 25-year-old ex-Marine, put Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man, in a six-minute chokehold after Neely boarded a subway car, according to police. Witnesses described Neely screaming and moving erratically, with Penny’s attorneys calling Neely “roguely menacing” as Penny choked Neely.
The city medical examiner concluded that Penny’s suffocation killed Neely.
Penny pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and reckless homicide.
The verdict form asks the jury to decide the first count — second-degree murder — before moving on to the second count of criminally negligent homicide. Only if Penny pleads guilty to the first count can she face the second count of criminally negligent homicide.
The second-degree murder charge requires prosecutors to prove that Penny acted recklessly, not intentionally.
“Would it be a crazy outcome to have a hung jury because it can’t go to count two?” Prosecutor Dafna Yoran said.
Yoran also told Wiley a new trial “if they ultimately hang the case.”
Wiley left unanswered whether the jury could proceed to the second count if they cannot reach a verdict on the first count. He said he believed it was possible for the jury to proceed to the second count, but that he needed to find the legal authority to do so.
“I think we’re going to have to answer the question of whether or not they can go to two counts in the end,” he said.
Twenty minutes after encouraging the judge to continue deliberating despite the deadlock, the jury sent another memo asking for more information about the term “reasonable person” in its instructions.
“At the end of the day, you have to decide what a reasonable person is,” Wiley told the jury in response to one of his remarks, directing him to a two-part test in the jury instruction.
In order for Penny to be convicted of murder, the jury must be convinced that Penny acted recklessly and how a reasonable person would have acted, knowing the danger that her behavior entailed.
“Would a reasonable person have the same honest belief as the defendant given the circumstances and what the defendant knew at the time?” Wiley asked, referring to the second part of the test.
Before the jury was impaneled, Wiley noted how the “reasonableness” standard was established in People v. Another high-profile trial of Goetz in New York was Bernhard Goetz’s 1984 shooting of four teenagers on a New York subway after they allegedly tried to rob them. A New York jury convicted Goetz of carrying a firearm without a license, but acquitted him of the most serious charges, and the trial ignited a debate over race and crime that has echoed in Penny’s case forty years later.
