Subway Chokehold Trial: Defense and Prosecution Clash Over the Fate of Daniel Penny
The Manhattan courtroom crackled with tension as closing arguments unfolded in the trial of Daniel Penny, the former Marine accused of fatally choking Jordan Neely on a crowded subway train. Penny’s defense attorney, Steven Raiser, painted a picture of a man forced to take decisive action, while the prosecution, led by Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran, argued that Penny used deadly force against a defenseless individual.
Raiser’s closing statement aimed to cast Penny as a hero, someone who stepped up to protect innocent passengers from a perceived threat. He vividly recounted the chaotic scene aboard the F train:
"Imagine yourself on that train that day," Raiser urged the jurors. "Picture an uptown F train, the sounds, the fear. Daniel Penny was the one who moved to protect these people, because he had something the others didn’t. Something unique to him."
Raiser highlighted Penny’s military training, arguing that it instilled in him a sense of duty and responsibility. "He had a softer side," Raiser claimed, suggesting that Penny sought to restrain, not kill Neely. He further criticized the prosecution for what he perceived as scapegoating: "They put their life on the line for perfect strangers."
The prosecution, however, painted a drastically different picture. Yoran asserted that Penny “absolutely not” had the right to use deadly force against Neely, emphasizing that Neely was unarmed and posed no immediate threat once the train doors opened.
“The defendant was all too aware of what the consequences could be," Yoran declared, referencing Penny’s military training and knowledge of chokehold dangers.
Yoran played audio clips of Penny’s statements to police after the incident, in which he referred to Neely with derogatory terms and claimed that "these guys are pushing people in front of trains." This, Yoran argued, showed a lack of empathy and a tendency to dehumanize Neely.
She also pointed to numerous eyewitnesses who urged Penny to stop choking Neely, highlighting a willful disregard for the pleas of those around him.
"Imagine not even caring enough to ask that," Yoran said, referring to Penny’s silence about Neely’s wellbeing as first responders tried in vain to revive him. “The defendant, as kind and empathetic as we’ve heard he can be, seems to have a real blind spot for Mr. Neely."
The prosecution’s closing statement ended on a heartfelt note, reminding jurors that beneath the legal jargon and courtroom drama, a human life was tragically lost:
“Our society has long ago made the determination that it is better to let someone escape than to kill them,” Yoran stated, directly challenging the defense’s narrative.
The case has sparked intense debate and polarized reaction. Supporter of Penny, including several conservative celebrities, donated over $3 million to his legal defense fund, praising him as a hero. However, others condemned Penny as a vigilante, calling for justice for Neely and highlighting the potential dangers inherent in stigmatising individuals experiencing mental health crises.
Now, the fate of Daniel Penny rests in the hands of the jury, whom the defense attorney pleaded with to "see what’s truly in his heart." The jury will continue deliberations and determine whether Penny’s actions constituted manslaughter or simply a, in his words, "softer side" responding to a perceived threat.