Daniel Penny’s Lawyers:  ‘Who Will Stand Up When Others Stay Silent?’

Daniel Penny’s Lawyers:  ‘Who Will Stand Up When Others Stay Silent?’”

Edited by: TJVNews.com

The trial of Daniel Penny, the Marine veteran charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide for the death of Jordan Neely in May 2023, reached a critical juncture Monday as both defense and prosecution delivered their closing arguments in Manhattan Supreme Court. The case has drawn national attention for its complex mix of self-defense, public safety, and the rights of vulnerable populations.

According to a report on Monday in The New York Post, Penny’s defense painted him as a courageous individual who acted to protect fellow subway riders from a “desperate” and “menacing” Neely, while the prosecution contended that Penny’s use of force far exceeded what was necessary or lawful, ultimately leading to an unnecessary death.

Penny’s defense attorney, Steven Raiser, framed the 26-year-old as a Good Samaritan who put himself in harm’s way to protect others. The New York Post reported that Raiser described the chaotic scene aboard the F train, where Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man with a history of mental illness and substance abuse, allegedly threatened passengers in an “unhinged rant.”

“Danny acted when others didn’t,” Raiser told jurors. “He put his life on the line. He did that for perfect strangers.”

Raiser sought to personalize the situation, asking jurors to imagine themselves on the train that day and consider who they would want as a fellow passenger. “The guy on the train with the earbuds minding his own business, who you know will be there for you if something happens? Or, you just hope someone like Neely never enters, especially when you’re all alone,” he said, as was indicated in The New York Post report.

The defense argued that Penny’s actions were not only justified but necessary to prevent what could have been a deadly escalation.

Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran acknowledged that Neely’s behavior was alarming but maintained that Penny’s actions went far beyond what was reasonable or justifiable. The New York Post report noted that Yoran argued that Penny’s decision to hold Neely in a chokehold for six minutes—well after he was unconscious—transformed an initially defensible response into a criminal act.

“We are here today because the defendant used way too much force for way too long in a way too reckless manner,” Yoran said, as was quoted in The New York Post. She emphasized that while Penny may have been justified in restraining Neely initially, his continued use of the chokehold was both unnecessary and inhumane.

“There is no conceivable justification under the law, and human decency, to hold an unconscious man in a chokehold,” Yoran added, pointing to a bystander’s video that captured the prolonged restraint.

According to the information provided in The New York Post report, the prosecution argued that Penny’s actions contradicted societal norms and legal standards meant to prevent unjustifiable deaths, calling the incident a tragic failure of judgment.

The case hinges on whether the jury views Penny’s actions as a reasonable response to a perceived threat or an excessive use of deadly force. The prosecution conceded that Neely’s behavior was alarming, describing him as a man in the throes of mental illness whose actions frightened passengers. However, they maintained that Penny crossed the line into criminality when he continued to apply force after Neely was subdued and unconscious.

The defense, on the other hand, argued that Penny’s intentions were honorable and that his actions were those of someone acting under pressure to protect others. The report in The New York Post said that Raiser’s appeal to the jury’s sense of personal safety and reliance on a hypothetical scenario—asking who they’d prefer on a train with them—was aimed at casting doubt on the prosecution’s portrayal of Penny as reckless.

“Danny acted to save those people,” Raiser said. “He had something the others didn’t, something unique to him. His training.”

Raiser emphasized that Penny was not a brute but a multifaceted individual with a “softer side,” describing him as an avid surfer and an architecture student at the time of the incident. This portrayal aimed to humanize Penny and counter the image of an aggressor.

To reframe the narrative surrounding the incident, Raiser avoided the term “chokehold,” instead describing Penny’s actions as a “civilian restraint,” according to The New York Post report. He insisted that Penny’s intention was never to harm Neely but to hold him until police arrived.

“He holds him until police arrives. Never to render him unconscious and never to try to hurt him,” Raiser argued, attempting to challenge the New York City medical examiner’s conclusion that the chokehold was the primary cause of Neely’s death.

According to The New York Post, Penny sat stoically at the defense table in a brown suit and maroon tie, staring ahead toward the judge but avoiding eye contact with the jury. Outside the courthouse, a vocal group of protesters chanted, “Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!” demanding justice for Neely, a homeless man who died in a chokehold during the confrontation with Penny on the subway in May 2023.

Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran sharply criticized Penny’s actions, arguing that his Marine training should have given him the knowledge to subdue Neely without causing his death.

“Penny could have easily restrained Jordan Neely without choking him to death,” Yoran told the jury, as was cited in The New York Post report.  She rejected the defense’s characterization of the incident, asserting that Penny’s prolonged application of the chokehold—over six minutes, according to witnesses—was excessive and reckless.

Yoran contended that Penny’s conduct went beyond self-defense and into criminality when he continued to hold Neely even after the man became unconscious. The Post report noted that she further argued that the term “civilian restraint” was a euphemism designed to obscure the reality of Penny’s actions.

“The chokehold caused his death. That’s not opinion—that’s fact,” Yoran said, defending the medical examiner’s findings.

The case has drawn intense public scrutiny, with protesters outside the courthouse demanding a conviction. Shouts of “What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now!” filled the air as Penny exited a black SUV to enter the courthouse.

Inside, the jury grappled with competing narratives: Was Penny a hero who stepped up to protect others in a moment of danger? Or was he a reckless individual whose actions led to the tragic and unnecessary death of a vulnerable man?

As the jury begins deliberations, the case stands as a litmus test for how society balances individual accountability, public safety, and the treatment of marginalized populations. Jordan Neely’s death has become emblematic of the struggles faced by those living with mental illness and homelessness, while Penny’s actions raise questions about the boundaries of self-defense and the use of force.

The outcome of this trial will not only decide Penny’s fate but could also set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future