newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
Sometimes justice is vindicated and right triumphs over evil.
Following Monday’s “not guilty” verdict, a Manhattan jury unanimously sent a resounding message to District Attorney Alvin Bragg that he had wrongly prosecuted a good Samaritan. A man bravely came to the rescue of a subway passenger who was in imminent danger of death. Not that Mr. Bragg pays any attention.
The lawsuit against Marine Corps veteran Daniel Penny should never have been filed. That was grossly unfair. By law, he was justified in using reasonable force, even deadly force, to subdue a maniac who vowed to kill passengers the moment he entered a subway car. The man, Jordan Neely, initiated the confrontation and died as a result of his own threatening and illegal conduct.
Daniel Penny found not guilty in subway chokehold trial
Instead of being celebrated, Penny was pilloried as a bigoted vigilante by the usual racial justice warriors who tried to turn Neely’s death into yet another George Floyd outrage. Bragg, who sees everything through the prism of race and politics, was happy to do their bidding. At trial, the lead prosecutor referred to Penny as a “white man.” That was reprehensible.
But in the end, the 12 diverse jurors refused to abide by the blatant racism. They were well aware of the dangers of New York’s dangerous subway system, where murders have increased by 60% this year, according to police statistics. Stabbings, shootings, beatings, and robberies now seem commonplace as criminals roam freely through underground transportation systems in search of their next victim.
Jurors accepted as truth the testimony of the passengers, some of whom were black, who said they were grateful when Penny helped them. He cleverly threatened them. They panicked and feared that their lives were about to end. Far from being a violent criminal, the former Marine was seen as a benevolent and heroic figure by those at risk.
Mr. Bragg didn’t care about the innocent patients receiving death threats. His ideas of “restorative justice” always centered around protecting criminals. During the trial, prosecutors contemptuously dismissed the passengers’ testimony about what happened that horrific day, while manipulating the evidence to turn Neely from villain to victim.
Andrew McCarthy: Prosecutors and judges ridicule justice in subway hero Daniel Penny’s trial
The bench’s erroneous ruling made Penny’s defense even more difficult. When the jury deadlocked after about 30 hours of deliberation on the most serious charge of manslaughter, prosecutors spent weeks telling the jury that the defendant was guilty. Judge Maxwell Wylie granted the prosecutor’s office’s request to drop the charges.
The judge’s sentence was inappropriate. He contradicted his previous ruling that a jury could. only Consider a lesser charge of manslaughter in the following cases: beginning Penny was found “not guilty” on the top count. That didn’t happen. The judge seemed to agree that the dismissal was not permissible, but fired him anyway.
In fact, the rules governing criminal procedure law mandate a mistrial if the jury is hung, unless the defense agrees to dismiss the case. Penny’s lawyer did not.
It may seem unusual or contradictory for juries to deadlock on more serious crimes but acquit defendants on lesser charges. But jurors are allowed to change their minds during deliberations as they review evidence and absorb counterarguments behind closed doors.
Mr. Bragg may be foolish to try, but Mr. Penny cannot be re-indicted on the manslaughter charge, which he voluntarily dropped during deliberations. The danger is attached when the jury in a trial is reduced and sworn in. Therefore, a second prosecution would be barred under the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy doctrine.
For more FOX News opinions, click here
Inevitably, social justice activists were quick to denounce Penny’s acquittal and intensify their protests. Demonstrators outside a New York courthouse chanted “no justice, no peace” in what became an implicit threat of violent riots and a raucous symbol of the Black Lives Matter movement. The mob is, at the very least, merciless.
Within minutes of the verdict, BLM-affiliated agitators issued incendiary threats, calling for “black vigilantes” and “retribution.” Their goal is to incite racial hatred under the guise of egalitarian justice. They denounced the outcome of the trial as a victory for white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan.
It is a sad thing in our time that such despicable demagoguery has a devoted audience of unwise disciples.
For Daniel Penny, the jury’s correct verdict would provide immediate relief from the criminal ordeal he has endured with dignity for the past 18 months. He was released, but unjustly tainted. He still faces a civil lawsuit filed late last week by Neely’s absentee father.
I do not intend to penalize the plaintiff’s case because it has a prosperous future. While it is true that the standard of proof is lower in civil litigation, recoverable damages are speculative and minimal.
Parents typically sue for loss of companionship and future financial support. There’s nothing here. A poor, estranged son with little or no contact with his father is unlikely to acquire any meaningful wealth.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Unfortunately, the greater societal harm caused by Bragg’s unjust case may be borne by future crime victims in New York and perhaps elsewhere. Knowing that elected district attorneys are eager to prosecute good Samaritans will deter them from defending others who are being exploited. The weak and weak among us may be the easier targets.
That is the tragic epitaph of the Daniel Penny trial.
Click here to read more about Greg Jarrett
