Prosecutors admit victim caused fear, defense to portray client as protector
The trial of Daniel Penny, a former Marine accused of choking a homeless man to death on an F train in Manhattan, has seen over eight days of testimony from more than 30 witnesses. Prosecutors, led by Dafna Yoran, have strategically presented accounts of the victim, Jordan Neely, as frightening. Witnesses described Mr. Neely as menacing and aggressive, yelling about hunger and wanting to return to jail.
The prosecution’s approach in highlighting the fear factor in witness testimonies was a deliberate strategy. According to Anna Cominsky, director of the criminal defense clinic at New York Law School, this tactic was necessary as finding witnesses to portray Mr. Neely in a positive light would have been challenging. By addressing Mr. Neely’s behavior directly, the prosecutors aimed to establish a narrative that did not hinge on the victim’s actions.
The crux of the prosecution’s case against Mr. Penny revolves around the argument that his actions, specifically maintaining a chokehold on Mr. Neely for an excessive duration, crossed the line into criminal behavior. Despite Mr. Neely’s provocative conduct on the train, prosecutors emphasized that Mr. Penny’s continued restraint of the victim beyond the point of threat escalation constituted manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.
Prosecutors sought to redirect the jury’s focus away from the initial altercation on the train and towards the critical moments following the train’s arrival at Broadway-Lafayette Street station. It was at this juncture, prosecutors contended, that Mr. Penny’s actions transitioned from being potentially justifiable to criminally culpable. They underscored that Mr. Penny’s military training should have equipped him with the discernment to release the chokehold when the threat subsided.
The trial’s narrative underscores the prosecution’s efforts to establish a clear timeline of events and to emphasize the significance of Mr. Penny’s actions post-train incident. By framing the case in this manner, prosecutors aim to persuade the jury of Mr. Penny’s culpability in Mr. Neely’s tragic death.
Source: The NY Times
