NYC Subway Chokehold Death: Defense Presents Contradictory Evidence

The ongoing trial of Daniel Penny, charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely, took a dramatic turn with conflicting expert testimony.

Defense Pathologist's Testimony

A forensic pathologist hired by the defense argued that Neely's death stemmed from a combination of factors, including a sickle cell crisis, schizophrenia, the struggle, restraint, and the presence of synthetic marijuana in his system. He challenged the city medical examiner's conclusion that the chokehold was the sole cause of death, stating that the pressure applied wasn't sufficient to cause unconsciousness.

<figure> <img src="https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-760w,f_auto,q_auto:best/rockcms/2024-10/241017-jordan-neely-al-1308-4007e5.jpg" alt="Jordan Neely"> <figcaption>Jordan Neely in New York City in 2009.</figcaption> </figure>

The defense also presented character witnesses, including Penny's sister and mother, who testified to his empathetic and peaceful nature, contradicting evidence suggesting Penny had lied to police about the incident.

Prosecution's Rebuttal

The prosecution's expert witness, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, maintained that Neely died from compression to his neck due to the chokehold. She stood firm in her conclusion despite the defense's attempts to discredit her findings.

Key Differences in Testimony

The core disagreement lies in the interpretation of the evidence. The defense emphasizes multiple contributing factors, while the prosecution focuses on the chokehold as the direct cause of death. This conflicting expert testimony leaves the jury to weigh the credibility and evidence presented by both sides.

The trial continues with further cross-examination and evidence expected to be presented.