Daniel Penny prosecutors show shocking evidence to jury before they begin deliberations – as former Marine stands accused of killing homeless man Jordan Neely

Prosecutors have told Daniel Penny’s manslaughter trial that the former Marine “knew he had eliminated the threat” before releasing mentally ill homeless man Jordan Neely.

The 26-year-old Marine veteran denies charges of manslaughter and negligent homicide following the death of Michael Jackson impersonator Neely in May 2023. Twelve jurors are now locked in tense deliberations to decide his fate.

Mr. Neely died on the floor of an uptown F train in Manhattan after Penny placed him in a chokehold in an attempt to prevent him from threatening commuters.

Mothers, children and students were among the terrified onlookers who felt harassed by Mr Neely, who told them he was ready to “go back to jail” and “kill” someone.

Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran at the end of her closing remarks Tuesday showed a graphic photo of the inside of Neely’s eye, taken during an autopsy after his death.

The image was broadcast across four television screens covering all corners of the courtroom – two of which faced the jury, a third overlooking the viewing gallery and a fourth directly in front of Penny.

During her summations, the photo was shown for a long time, causing both judges and audience to look away.

In the state’s closing arguments Monday afternoon into Tuesday morning, Yoran acknowledged it was a “difficult case” for jurors to grapple with.

She cautioned them that their judgment should not depend on whether they themselves would be grateful for Penny’s intervention, or whether they would weigh the testimonies of the Marine veteran’s loved ones that he is a “good man.”

“What’s so tragic about this case is that even though the defendant started doing the right thing… a man died,” she said.

‘He got all the signals he needed to stop. He ignored them. He has to be held accountable for that.”

She continued, “You’re not here to decide if you want to ride the train alone with Jordan Neely. That’s not what this case is about. “The only thing you need to determine here is whether or not the evidence here proves that the defendant killed Jordan Neely.”

Ms Yoran begged the jury to find Penny guilty of manslaughter – a charge that carries a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.

She told jurors in detail how Mr Neely “clawed his nails at his own neck” as he fought the chokehold in those crucial first few minutes, before eventually urinating on himself and losing consciousness.

She described the negligent homicide charge – the lesser of the two – as essentially an emergency charge to be used if the jury is not convinced that Penny committed manslaughter.

“You, the jurors, must state unequivocally in your verdict that no one’s life can be snuffed out in such an unjustified manner,” she said.

“If the defendant is not justified in killing Mr. Neely, then killing him is a crime.” But what crime is it? Manslaughter in the second degree is a reckless killing – not intentional.”

Ms Yoran told jurors that if Penny is “reckless” in this case, he must be aware that his actions put Mr Neely at a “significant risk of death”.

“You have to be aware that what you are doing is significantly different from what a reasonable person would do,” she said.

“If you don’t believe the suspect was aware, that’s negligent homicide, that is, the failure to appreciate the risk,” she said.

‘The difference is known, or should have been known.’ Ms Yoran claimed the evidence showed Penny was aware of the consequences of his actions.

“The defendant has just spent the last six minutes glued to Mr. Neely’s back … all to make sure he doesn’t attack anyone or get away,” she said.

Ms Yoran shared footage of Penny standing at the side of the train immediately after ending the chokehold and asked jurors to consider why he felt comfortable stepping away at this point.

‘Why is he suddenly not worried about that? Because he knows that Mr. Neely is no longer a threat. That he’s out.

“If the defendant believed that he had merely rendered Mr. Neely temporarily unconscious, he would have taken immediate action to secure him by other means because he would have believed that Mr. Neely would wake up at any moment and attack someone or run away.

“If he came back to life, he would have come back to life in seconds. The defendant clearly knows that Mr. Neely won’t wake up anytime soon.

‘There’s only one explanation for that: he knows Mr. Neely won’t wake up. He knows he has eliminated the threat.”

Ms. Yafna also cited Penny’s Marine Corps training, arguing that given his military experience, he should have had a better understanding of the risks of his actions.

“Besides, she said it’s ‘common sense.’ ‘We all know that we need air to breathe and that it goes down your throat.

‘You know how fragile throats are. It is difficult to imagine that there is anyone who would not be aware of that possibility – if not of probability.”

While Ms Yafna argued she did not need to prove a motive, she said it was clear from the evidence that Penny had overlooked Mr Neely’s “humanity”.

She shared footage of Penny’s police interview in which he repeatedly called Neely “just a crackhead.”

At the time, Penny didn’t know Neely was dead. He also did not know that police had called in the district attorney’s office, which was behind double-sided glass and instructed police what questions to ask, the defense said.

But Ms Yoran said it was telling that Penny never asked about Neely’s well-being during this interview.

“Throughout his entire interrogation, the defendant never says, ‘Oh, how’s that guy?’ Is he okay? Did he make it?’ Imagine not even caring enough to ask that. The defendant, as empathetic as he is, seems to have a real blind spot for Mr. Neely,” she said.

‘Maybe we did them differently too. He lumps them all together, as he does. But the context here is telling.

‘If the defendant talks like that, he knows he very likely killed him. Can you imagine a reasonable person speaking this way about a human being he or she just killed?

‘There is something missing from this statement. Some regrets. Some remorse. Any self-reflection of “maybe I went too far.” Earlier on Monday, the defense rested their case.

Defense attorney Steven Raiser told jurors that closing the case would initially put his case at a slight disadvantage — because he would no longer have an opportunity to respond to the claims Ms. Yoran would make in her own closing arguments.

That’s why he urged jurors to consider what he and his legal team would say in response if given the chance, based on the evidence presented.

He had previously asked the jurors to imagine they were on the train themselves as Neely approached.

Raiser argued that even the state’s own expert witnesses could not prove the key elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

“If their own experts have doubts… why shouldn’t you?” He asked the twelve jurors who listened to four weeks of intense testimony.

Raiser showed footage of the train car and used audio of train doors opening and closing, creating the scene he was trying to imagine to jurors.

‘Imagine that you are also on that train. Strangers brought together by fate,” he said.

“The doors begin to close, but a hand reaches in and pries the doors open again… you see a look in Jordan Neely’s eyes that is described… as violent and desperate.

‘Where are you going? Nowhere. You can’t go anywhere. Who will he hurt? Will it be me? Will it be my child? Will it be my friend?’

Raiser described these commuters as “frozen with fear.” He told jurors there was an obvious reason there was no footage of Neely’s outburst: they were too scared to move.

The first video evidence begins a minute after Penny gets Neely to the ground and captures much of the rest of the ordeal, including the painful moments when Neely took his last breath.

Raiser cited several experts and witnesses who testified at the trial. He reminded jurors that Neely was described as one of “the most severe psychotic cases” a medical professional has “ever seen.”

He also noted that Neely had synthetic drugs in his system — namely K2 — and that first responders chose to dispense Narcan, which was used to reverse the effects of opioids, before administering CPR.

Beyond these details, Raiser told the jury that the state had failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

He said there were questions about Neely’s cause of death, and whether the threshold of what constitutes death by chokehold had even been reached.

Raiser argued that the state’s own witness, the medical examiner, had expressed doubts about whether he first became unconscious or whether Neely was in the early stages of dying during the time frame the state said he first became unconscious.

“Unconsciousness always precedes death in a strangulation death,” he told the jury. “Why are we here with such a complete lack of evidence?” Raiser asked.

Answering his own question, Raiser accused the government of bowing to public pressure and feeling forced to make a quick arrest because of the media attention and widespread protests the case sparked.

“The case was flagged as high-profile,” he noted.