Grand Jury Votes to Indict Daniel Penny in Subway Chokehold Killing
A video of the encounter set off protests and prosecutors began to investigate. Mr. Penny was arrested and arraigned on May 12, but the law required that the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, persuade a grand jury that there was reasonable cause to believe Mr. Penny had committed a crime before proceeding with the case.
The grand jury process heavily favors prosecutors and, for many defendants, a vote to indict is expected. But former prosecutors had said that Mr. Penny’s chances of escaping an indictment might be better than most, given the circumstances on the subway car.
Mr. Penny had been expected to testify before the grand jury, but it is unclear whether he did so. In a video interview shared with multiple outlets, he said that Mr. Neely had been threatening to kill, and saying that he himself was ready to die. Mr. Penny said that he had not meant to kill Mr. Neely and was instead trying to restrain him.
If Mr. Penny pleads not guilty at his State Supreme Court arraignment, it would set up Mr. Bragg’s office for a high-profile trial. At a trial, Mr. Penny’s lawyers would likely argue that his actions were justified and that he had a reasonable belief that Mr. Neely was on the verge of using deadly force. Prosecutors would have to prove to a jury that Mr. Penny caused Mr. Neely’s death and used the chokehold knowing that it could kill.
The racial dynamics of the case — Mr. Penny is white and Mr. Neely was Black — drew intense attention, as did concerns about subway crime and the treatment of the mentally ill in New York. In the days after Mr. Neely was killed, left-leaning Democrats in New York pointed to the absence of a quick arrest as evidence of a racist justice system, and said the case exemplified the city’s challenges in dealing with its most vulnerable citizens.
Source: The New York Times
