The VERY telling question Daniel Penny jury asked within an hour of deliberations that may hint at verdict

The jury deliberating on the Daniel Penny trial requested a second reading of what is considered justified in the case shortly after it was dispatched.

Just over an hour after deliberations began, the jury of seven women and five men asked to hear again a specific part of the judge’s instructions on justification defenses.

They are weighing manslaughter and negligent homicide charges against Daniel Penny, who used a fatal chokehold to restrain Jordan Neely on the New York City subway.

To convict, prosecutors say Penny’s use of deadly force should be deemed unjustifiable and that he acted recklessly when he subdued Neely to death.

His lawyer claims Penny, 26, did not attempt to protect others on the subway until May 2023. The Marine veteran has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

After listening to the judge’s instructions again, the jurors continued to deliberate for 90 minutes before going home without reaching a verdict.

Neely died on the floor of the uptown F train in Manhattan after Penny put him in a chokehold for six minutes to prevent him from threatening commuters.

Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran on Tuesday showed a graphic photo of the inside of Neely’s eye taken during an autopsy after his death, shocking the room.

The image was shown on four screens: two facing the jury, a third facing the viewing gallery and a fourth directly in front of the defendant.

Meanwhile, Penny’s lawyer intervened in the prosecution after journalists were bombarded with emails from the district attorney’s office ordering them to include certain details in their stories.

In his closing arguments, defense attorney Steven Raiser pointed out that no expert witness at trial could prove key elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

He also accused the government of bowing to public pressure and feeling forced into a quick arrest due to media attention on the case.

Yoran warned the jury on Tuesday that their verdict should not depend on whether they themselves would be grateful for Penny’s intervention, or whether they would weigh the testimony of his 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.”

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

Yoran shared footage of Penny standing at the side of the train immediately after ending the chokehold, asking 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.”

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.

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 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.

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.

Raiser cited experts and witnesses who testified at the trial. He reminded jurors that Neely was described as “severely psychotic.”

Neely had struggled with depression, schizophrenia and drug abuse after his mother was strangled during his teenage years.

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

Both charges are felonies. Neither carries a mandatory prison sentence, but both carry a possibility: up to 15 years for manslaughter, or four years for negligent homicide.

Deliberations will resume on Wednesday.