The trial of Daniel Penny, a former Marine, captivated national attention as it became a flashpoint for debates surrounding race, mental health, homelessness, and self-defense. On December 9, 2024, a New York jury acquitted Penny of criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man. The case, which began after a violent confrontation aboard a New York City subway on May 1, 2023, drew parallels to previous high-profile cases, such as the Bernard Goetz subway shooting in 1984.

Penny’s acquittal left the courtroom in an uproar, with mixed reactions from onlookers. Some viewed him as a hero who protected subway passengers, while others saw him as a symbol of excessive force against the vulnerable. This article provides a comprehensive breakdown of the trial, the prosecution’s and defense’s arguments, and the public’s reaction to the controversial verdict.

(Facebook: Like, X: Follow, Telegram: Join us)

---

The Incident on May 1, 2023

The encounter between Daniel Penny and Jordan Neely began on a crowded uptown F train. Witnesses testified that Neely, who was homeless and had a history of mental illness, walked through the train yelling at passengers, expressing frustration with his situation. Some riders described feeling frightened by his aggressive behavior.

Daniel Penny, a former Marine, confronted Neely and ultimately placed him in a chokehold as the two men struggled on the floor of the subway car. Witnesses recorded video of the incident, which quickly went viral online, sparking heated debate over whether Daniel Penny’s actions were justified self-defense or an unnecessary use of deadly force.

Neely’s death was later ruled a homicide by compression of the neck, according to the city’s medical examiner. The case ignited fierce public debate, especially regarding the treatment of homeless individuals and the use of force in public spaces. New York Times

---

The Charges and Legal Proceedings

After the death was ruled a homicide, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Daniel Penny with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. These charges carried significant weight, as a conviction for manslaughter could have led to a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.

The legal process was marked by high-profile debates about the nature of the incident. Prosecutors aimed to prove that Daniel Penny acted recklessly by maintaining the chokehold on Neely for an excessive amount of time, despite Neely’s clear signs of distress. They argued that Penny should have released the chokehold when it became clear that Neely was no longer a threat. Yahoo

---

The Prosecution’s Argument

The prosecution sought to frame Daniel Penny’s actions as criminally reckless, claiming that he had failed to recognize Jordan Neely’s humanity. The prosecution’s key points included:

• Testimony from the medical examiner who ruled that Neely’s death was caused by compression of the neck, emphasizing that the chokehold was the direct cause of his death.
• Eyewitness accounts from subway riders, some of whom claimed that Neely was subdued and no longer a threat when Penny maintained the chokehold.
• The argument that Penny’s actions violated basic human decency, especially toward a vulnerable individual suffering from mental health issues.

Prosecutors painted Penny as someone who ignored Neely’s humanity, turning a routine subway disturbance into a deadly encounter. Yahoo

---

The Defense’s Argument

Penny’s legal team, led by attorney Thomas A. Kenniff, argued that his client acted in self-defense to protect himself and other passengers. Key points of the defense included:

• Penny’s military training had taught him to act decisively in dangerous situations, and he believed Neely posed an imminent threat.
• Other subway riders supported Daniel Penny’s intervention, with some testifying that Neely’s behavior frightened them.
• The defense questioned the cause of death, suggesting that factors like Neely’s history of drug use and a pre-existing sickle cell trait may have played a role in his death.
• They argued that Daniel Penny was not a vigilante but a man who took action to protect the people around him.

The defense further highlighted that Daniel Penny’s chokehold was a “trained response” from his Marine Corps background. According to his lawyers, Penny did not intend to kill Neely but was attempting to de-escalate a dangerous situation.

---

The Verdict: Acquittal on Criminally Negligent Homicide

After three days of deliberation, the 12-member jury, made up of seven women and five men, could not reach a unanimous decision on the manslaughter charge. Ultimately, the judge allowed the jury to deliberate on the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, for which the burden of proof is lower.

On December 9, 2024, the jury announced its verdict: not guilty. The decision was met with strong emotions inside the courtroom. Daniel Penny’s defense team embraced him, and his lawyer Thomas Kenniff slapped the table in celebration before hugging Penny.

On the other side, Jordan Neely’s family and supporters reacted with anger and grief. Neely’s father, Andre Zachery, lashed out at Daniel Penny’s supporters and was escorted out of the courtroom. Protesters with the Black Lives Matter movement and the National Action Network, led by Rev. Al Sharpton, expressed outrage over the decision.

---

Public Reaction and Controversy

The public reaction to Daniel Penny’s acquittal was as divided as the case itself.

Supporters of Penny claimed his actions were justified and a necessary response to growing fears about subway safety. Many pointed to rising crime rates on public transportation as a backdrop for the incident. Political figures like Governor Ron DeSantis and Rep. Matt Gaetz praised Penny as a “hero” and compared him to the Good Samaritan from the Bible.

Critics of the verdict, including the National Action Network and Black Lives Matter, argued that Daniel Penny’s acquittal was an example of systemic inequality. They claimed it showed a disregard for the lives of homeless individuals and highlighted racial bias in the legal system, noting that Penny is white and Neely was Black. Some compared the case to the infamous Bernard Goetz subway shooting in 1984, where Goetz shot four Black teenagers and was also acquitted of serious charges.

---

Key Takeaways from the Daniel Penny Trial

1. The Role of Race and Social Perception
   • Critics noted that Penny, a white man, was acquitted for the death of a Black homeless man. Similar comparisons were drawn to the Bernard Goetz case, which became a national flashpoint for debates on race and self-defense in 1984.
2. Mental Health and Homelessness in New York City
   • Advocates for homeless and mentally ill individuals argued that Neely’s death highlighted New York City’s failure to address its homelessness crisis. Many argued that mental illness and homelessness should never result in a death sentence.
3. The Use of Force in Self-Defense
   • The case sparked a national conversation about the limits of self-defense. When does self-defense turn into excessive force? Daniel Penny’s supporters argued that he acted to protect himself and others, while critics contended that the use of force was excessive and unnecessary.

---

Conclusion

The Daniel Penny trial is one of the most divisive legal cases in recent memory, underscoring larger social issues related to race, mental health, homelessness, and the limits of self-defense. While Penny’s acquittal was a victory for his defense team, it was a moment of pain and outrage for Jordan Neely’s family and supporters.

The debate is far from over. The case has reignited calls for police reform, increased support for homeless services, and discussions about how much force civilians can use in public spaces. It remains a defining legal moment for New York City and a reflection of America’s ongoing struggle with race, justice, and public safety.

Do Follow For More News : DailyForesight