NEW YORK – Dr. Satish Chundru, the Texas forensic pathologist who is defending Daniel Penny against charges in the subway strangulation death of Jordan Neely, has returned to New York. witness stand Friday, the second day of baking.
Penny, a 26-year-old Marine veteran and architecture student, caught Neely, 30, in a subway car during a schizophrenic and drug-induced explosion. Witnesses said threats to their lives included threats of death. . Neely still had a pulse when Penny let go of her hand, but he later died.
Contrary to the official autopsy report conducted by Dr. Cynthia Harris of the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office, Chundru testified that she did not believe strangulation caused Neely’s death.
Daniel Penny’s defense asks forensic pathologist to testify: ‘Necklace did not cause death’
Dr. Satish Chundru leaves the courtroom during a recess in the New York murder trial of Daniel Penny in Manhattan Supreme Court on Thursday, November 21, 2024. (Rashid Umar Abbasi for Fox News Digital)
During grueling cross-examination, Assistant Manhattan District Attorney Dafna Yoran questioned Dr. Chundru about the link between sickle cell traits and deaths in other cases, prompting repeated objections from the defense. .
At one point, Judge Maxwell Wiley cut her off and said, “We don’t do that.” However, the interrogation continued through additional protests before the trial was adjourned.
Before jurors returned, the defense argued that Yoran made a mistake when he inappropriately referred to the term “murder.” It happened earlier. Even at trial.
Wiley said he didn’t want to attack back and forth. When the jury returned, he told them that “murder” means something different to a lawyer, a jury, and a medical examiner, and asked them not to give weight to a witness’ use of that word when determining the facts of the case.
Danielle Penny walks down the hallway of Manhattan Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 19, 2024. Penny, a Marine Corps veteran, is charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter in the 2023 death of Jordan Neely on a New York City subway train. (Rashid Umar Abbasi for Fox News Digital)
This is the second time that the word ‘murder’ has been embroiled in controversy and the defense team has raised a counterargument. Earlier this week, Wiley ordered Dr. Harris to rescind his first comments when he noted that “all homicide reports” were reviewed by another doctor at the city medical examiner’s office.
Not all murders are crimes, and the defense argued that prosecutors’ repeated defense of the word could confuse jurors.
The defense asked the court to record several conversations, and the DA’s office agreed that presenting testimony from forensic pathologists who deemed the death a “homicide” could be misleading to the jury.
The first one was from Dr. Harris. Second, the defense attorney said Yoran said this as part of the interrogation. She denied it. The judge said he would later review the transcript and issue additional jury instructions if necessary.
Penny’s argument that its actions were justified is not its only defense, according to Louis Gelormino, a New York City defense attorney who is closely following the case.
“One of the other defenses is, ‘Well, I didn’t kill him. ‘My actions did not cause the death,’” he told Fox News Digital Friday. “Then yes. It makes no difference if it is justified. But if his actions aren’t justified, then the jury can say, ‘Hey, (his) actions didn’t kill him. You might say, ‘He died because of someone else.’ What’s happening in his body.’ That’s why it’s relevant.”
Chundru, formed miami area The medical examiner, who now runs a private practice that performs autopsies in six counties in Texas, testified that air asphyxiation did not cause Neely’s death because he did not believe it caused him to lose consciousness.
Rather, he blamed “the combined effects of sickle cell crisis, schizophrenia, fighting and restraint, and synthetic marijuana.”
Dr. Cynthia Harris arrives at the Daniel Penny trial at the Manhattan Criminal Court Building on Friday, November 15, 2024 in New York. Penny, a Marine Corps veteran, was charged in 2023 with second-degree manslaughter and manslaughter in the death. Jordan Neely riding the New York subway. (Adam Gray for Fox News Digital)
Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City medical examiner and leading forensic pathologist, disagreed with Chundru’s testimony.
“Dr. Chundru’s testimony may have been very interesting, but it was wrong,” he told Fox News Digital. “He explained what can happen in sickle cell disease, not the sickle cell trait that Neely had. Eight percent of black people in this country have sickle cell trait, a benign condition that rarely causes any symptoms, let alone death. .”
During the autopsy, Harris testified that he found significant “marks of disease” in Neely’s organs, and attorneys for both sides asked for an explanation. She said the condition did not play a role in Neely’s death and blamed it only on choking and asphyxiation.
“Sickle characteristic Red blood cells take on a sickle shape even after death when the body’s oxygen supply disappears and can be seen at autopsy. The same goes for Neely or anyone with the sickle trait who dies under any condition,” Baden said. “It’s an autopsy artifact, like rigor mortis. Moreover, death from sickle disease takes days and cannot happen in seconds as happened to Neely.”
Screenshot of bystander video showing Jordan Neely being strangled on a New York City subway. (New York Lights/Juan Alberto Vazquez, courtesy of Storyful)
But he said even if the act of strangulation caused Neely’s death, it would not be up to the coroner to decide whether it was a crime.
He continued, “Whether the death was avoidable (or) avoidable, and whether the death should be prosecuted depends on the individual’s circumstances and is entirely up to the prosecution.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Penny could face up to 15 years in prison if convicted of manslaughter. He is also charged with manslaughter.
It was not immediately clear whether he would take the stand in his defense, although some experts suggested he would. Maybe he will This is because it is a case of self-defense.
Considering the varying expert opinions on Neely’s cause of death, how can jurors responsibly evaluate complex medical evidence while avoiding bias toward a specific expert’s testimony?
Here are some open-ended questions based on the article, divided into thematic sections:
**I. The Role of Language and Controversy in the Trial:**
* The word “murder” has caused significant controversy in this trial. How can the casual use of such loaded terms potentially impact a jury’s perception of a case?
* Do you think the defense’s argument about the misuse of “murder” holds merit? Why or why not?
* How should judges and attorneys navigate potentially prejudicial language during a trial?
**II. Medical Testimony and Conflicting Opinions:**
* What are the ethical considerations involved when expert witnesses present conflicting interpretations of evidence, as seen with the differing opinions on Neely’s cause of death?
* How can jurors effectively evaluate complex medical evidence and weigh the credibility of different experts?
* To what extent should a coroner’s determination of cause of death influence whether a death is considered a crime?
**III. Self-Defense and Justification:**
* What are the legal and ethical considerations surrounding the use of deadly force in self-defense?
* Under what circumstances might “justifiable homicide” be a valid legal defense?
* How does the information presented about Neely’s mental health and behavior factor into the discussion of self-defense?
**IV. Racial and Social Context:**
* This case has drawn significant attention to issues of race and social inequality. How do you think these factors are influencing public perception of the trial?
* Do you believe that systemic racism or implicit bias could potentially affect the outcome of the case?
* What broader societal conversations should this case spark about mental health, homelessness, and interactions between citizens and law enforcement?
**V. The Impact of Media Coverage:**
* How does media coverage, including images and headlines, potentially shape public opinion and influence the fairness of a trial?
* What responsibility do journalists have to ensure balanced and accurate reporting, especially in high-profile cases?
**VI. The Future of the Case:**
* Based on the evidence presented so far, what are the potential outcomes of the trial?
* What are the long-term implications of this case, regardless of the verdict?
**Reminder:**
These questions are intended to encourage thoughtful discussion and critical thinking. They are meant to spark conversation and exploration of various perspectives, rather than leading to definitive answers.
