Was Daniel Penny Justified?: Legal Analysis by Attorneys Andy Marcantel and Brittany LaBerry
Featuring Attorneys Andy Marcantel and Brittany LaBerry
December 13, 2024
The highly publicized Daniel Penny case, centered on Mr. Penny’s fatal restraint of Jordan Neely, a man exhibiting aggressive behavior on a New York City subway, has sparked intense public debate. The debate has focused particularly on whether Mr. Penny’s actions were racially motivated. Critics have condemned Mr. Penny by drawing attention to Mr. Neely’s troubled background: he was raised in foster care, lost his mother at a young age, struggled with schizophrenia, and homelessness.
In contrast, some have highlighted Mr. Penny’s background as a Marine, often implying a power imbalance or invoking issues of systemic bias. However, criminal defense attorneys Andrew C. Marcantel and Brittany LaBerry argue that these personal histories are irrelevant to the case’s legal issues, and urge the public to focus on the facts of the case rather than racial or social narratives.
Case Background
On May 1, 2023, Mr. Penny boarded a subway train where Mr. Neely was reportedly behaving erratically, shouting, making threats, and at one point lunging toward a woman. Witnesses stated that Mr. Penny intervened by restraining Mr. Neely via a choke hold, with assistance from two other individuals. The restraint lasted approximately six minutes.
“Neely pried the door open, threw down his jacket, and said ‘somebody’s going to die today I’m not scared to go back to prison, I want some food, I’m hungry and I’m willing to kill people for it’ essentially.”
– Attorney Marcantel
Mr. Neely lost consciousness and was later pronounced dead due to neck compression. Police eventually arrived, arrested, and questioned Mr. Penny, who waived his Fifth Amendment rights and cooperated with the investigation, reportedly unaware that Mr. Neely had died.
Medical Findings and Legal Charges
The autopsy determined that Mr. Neely died as a result of neck compression, establishing a link between Mr. Penny’s chokehold and Mr. Neely’s death. This finding played a critical role in the prosecution’s case. Mr. Penny was subsequently charged with two offenses:
• Second Degree Manslaughter: required the prosecution to prove that Mr. Penny acted recklessly while knowing of the substantial risk that the chokehold could result in Mr. Neely’s death, but chose to disregard said risk.
• Criminally Negligent Homicide: a less severe charge, which required the prosecution to prove that Mr. Penny failed to recognize a risk of death that a reasonable person would have noticed, and, as a result, caused Mr. Neely’s death.
Defense Strategy
The defense strategy emphasized the uncertainty surrounding the cause of Mr. Neely’s death. Toxicology reports were not available before the medical examiner ruled on Mr. Neely’s cause of death. Mr. Penny’s attorneys used this fact to argue that Mr. Neely’s death could have resulted from drug use or pre-existing conditions.
Additionally, the defense team cited two key New York statutes to argue that Mr. Penny’s actions were justified:
• Self-defense: Mr. Penny restrained Mr. Neely to defend himself from an imminent threat and used the amount of force that was reasonably necessary to do so.
• Defense of others: Mr. Penny used a reasonable amount of force to protect his fellow passengers, including women and children, from Mr. Neely’s aggression.
Several witnesses supported Mr. Penny’s account. The attorneys noted that while verbal threats alone do not justify physical force, Mr. Neely escalated the incident by lunging at passengers, giving Mr. Penny a reasonable basis to act.
Mr. Penny’s attorneys also presented Mr. Neely’s criminal history.
“My understanding is [Mr. Neely] had been arrested forty-two times . . . [t]he year prior, he had just gotten arrested for assaulting someone on a subway.”
– Attorney Marcantel
Prosecution’s Strategy
The prosecution portrayed Mr. Penny as cold and indifferent, pointing to his unemotional demeanor during his police interview. They also questioned his credibility, noting that he failed to mention Mr. Neely allegedly lunged at women until the trial, suggesting he fabricated the claim. The attorneys emphasized the importance of staying silent and requesting a lawyer after a self-defense incident, warning that anything someone says can be used against them in court.
Prosecutors further argued that Mr. Penny used excessive force by holding Mr. Neely in a chokehold for too long, especially given his military background, which could mean he applied more force than a typical civilian. Attorney Marcantel explained how, as a prosecutor, he would argue that the chokehold was unnecessary since Mr. Penny had help from two others.
Jury Deliberations and the Court’s Ruling
Jury deliberations proved to be complex, with the panel initially deadlocked on the manslaughter charge. In an effort to break the impasse, the judge issued an Allen charge, a special instruction urging jurors to continue deliberating and attempt to reach a unanimous verdict. Despite this, the deadlock remained.
In response, the prosecution requested that the manslaughter charge be dismissed and asked the jury to instead consider the lesser included offense of Negligent Homicide. The defense strongly objected, arguing that this shift could improperly pressure jurors into a compromised verdict.
Nonetheless, the judge allowed the jury to proceed under the revised directive. Ultimately, the jury returned a not-guilty verdict on the Negligent Homicide charge. Because of constitutional protection against double jeopardy, this outcome means Mr. Penny cannot be retried on these specific charges.
Despite the jury returning a not guilty verdict, civil litigation is expected as Mr. Neely’s family continues to pursue damages. The attorneys urge Mr. Penny to stay silent publicly during this time, to avoid anything being used against him.
If you are interested in our self-defense program and what it can do for you, please visit our website at attorneysonretainers.us or call us at 866-404-5112.
