The protection rested its case on Friday within the manslaughter trial of Daniel Penny, a Marine veteran charged within the loss of life of Jordan Neely, a homeless New York subway performer. In a notable choice, Penny selected to not testify in his personal protection.
The protection’s last witness was court docket clerk Brian Kempf, who testified about issuing an arrest warrant for Neely after he missed a court docket look in February 2023, as reported by the New York Put up. This occurred two months earlier than Neely’s loss of life aboard an F prepare in Could.
Penny’s choice to not take the stand means the jury won’t hear his private account of the occasions main as much as Neely’s loss of life.
The 24-year-old is on trial for second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent murder. The incident befell on Could 1, 2023, on an uptown F prepare in Manhattan, when Penny restrained Neely in a deadly chokehold throughout an altercation.
Witnesses described Neely as delivering an “unhinged” rant towards passengers earlier than Penny subdued him in a chokehold that lasted six minutes.
Though Penny selected to stay silent, his legal professional, Thomas Kenniff, addressed reporters after court docket proceedings. “This jury has heard from Mr Penny. They heard from him earlier than he had the chance to have an legal professional. They heard him within the minutes and hours after this incident… He informed them what occurred, and he stated all the identical issues, all the identical issues in essence that the credible eyewitnesses testified. That Jordan Neely was terrifying,” Kenniff stated, as quoted by the New York Put up.
Kenniff careworn the protection’s argument: “He believed, like so many eyewitnesses, that [Neely] was going to make good … He thought somebody was going to get damage, he thought somebody was going to get killed, and he acted. I don’t understand how rather more the jury has to listen to in that regard.”
The case has divided New Yorkers, sparking debate over vigilante justice and subway security. Prosecutors preserve that Neely, although behaving erratically, was non-violent, whereas the protection argues Penny’s actions had been justified by Neely’s threatening demeanor.
