December 6, 2024 • 7 mins
The WOR Morning Show talks to Jesse Weber about the latest on the Daniel Penny case. Jesse discusses what the likely outcome is, and what the jury is deliberating now that final arguments have been made.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We happen to have the best legal analysts. We share
them with News Nation. Jesse Weber is News Nation legal
contributor anchor on the Law and Crime Network. He's also
a co host right here of wo r's Always in Fashion,
which now airs both Saturday and Sunday at seven o'clock. Jesse,
thanks so much for being with us today, So read
(00:23):
the tea leaves for us. What do you see?
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Well, first of all, thanks coming, thanks for having me.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Sure.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
Look, I will say it's impossible to know what the
jury is thinking. You know, I have covered trials before
where a jury asks a question, and by the way,
this is a jury that is asking a lot of questions,
and you might take a guess as to what they're thinking,
but you really don't know. Having said that, the fact
that they are asking for a readback of testimony from
the medical example, the fact that they're looking at the
(00:49):
bodycam footage, they're looking at cell phone videos, the fact
that they have asked what is the definition of recklessness
versus negligence? Those are two different criminal charge is by
which Daniel Petty could be found guilty of. They seem
to be divided on a lot of things and it
could be that it might be one jur it might
be many jurors. You only need one juror to be
(01:11):
a holdout, and this could be a hung jury, Which
is why I think a lot of us in the
legal community are saying, you know, they've been deliberating for
a few days.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Is that where we're headed.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
Is that where we're headed where a jury does not
have a consensus. And if that's the case, and they
come back today and say, listen, judge, we can't come
to a decision, then the judge will instruct them.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
It's called an allen charge.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
Go back, deliberate, look at the evidence. This is a
very serious decision. But don't abandon your convictions. If you
really believe what you believe, don't abandon it just to
rush to a verdict. I think at this point it's
a really, really tough, close knit case. And I've had
this debate with people. They say, well, maybe you know
they're going to find a compromise verdict. They won't find
(01:53):
them guilty of the top charge of manslaughter, but to
find them guilty of criminally negligent homicide. But then I'm
also saying, this could be a situation where jurors are saying,
either he did.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Something wrong or he didn't do something wrong. Either he's
guilty or he's not guilty.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
And it's a really, really tough, tough case where you
had two diametrically opposed versions of what happened on that subway.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Let's say there is a home jury, Jesse, is there
a new trial? What happens next?
Speaker 2 (02:22):
I don't well, I don't think there should be. Yeah,
I think politically they shouldn't do it.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
This is a tough case for prosecutors to bring, both
legally and politically.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
You know, let me tell you something.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
At the beginning of this trial, every there was the
prosecution's case, they're burdened.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
They called the witnesses to the training.
Speaker 4 (02:39):
Now, these people that you would think would say, we
had no idea what Daniel Penny was doing.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
The guy, you know, Jordan Neely, wasn't a threat.
Speaker 4 (02:46):
Witness after witness after witness basically said we were in
fear for our lives. And I said, is this the
prosecution's case of the defense's case. And look as it
went on, they built it up and they said Jordan
Neely never had a weapon, he never put his hands
on anybody, you can't kill somebody because of making empty threats.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
They had a.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Medical examiner who said that even if Jordan Neely had
all the fent and all in his system that could
kill an elephant, he still died from the chokehold.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
And that was one of the things that the jury asked.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
Fact they wanted to read back of some of her
testimony when she was being questioned by the defense, and
so it's hard to know what they might be fixed.
There's two factors here, right, it's causation. Did Daniel Penny
kill Jordan Neely? And if he did, was it justified?
And those two questions are not so simple to resolve.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
You know, it's really fascinating. This is a good time,
by the way, for legal analysts. It seems like they're
all over television and talking about this case. It brings
me back to like the OJ Simpson trum. Everybody got
a job. Everybody got a job as a legal analyst.
We're so happy to have you. But one of them
said something fascinating. Because of what's being asked for in evidence,
(03:56):
she believed they either put aside or skipped right over
causation and went to justification. And she thought that was significant.
Do you agree.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
I don't believe that a jury will go back and forth.
Speaker 4 (04:10):
I mean, it took seventy five minutes for them, in
their deliberations to just ask for a read back of
the charges and the defenses. They might say, you know,
we want to I think they're still deliberating what the
causation issue as much as they're deliberating the legal justification issue, because.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
That's why I think they wanted to look.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
One of the things they're looking at, I imagine from
the video was the way in which Daniel Penny was
holding Jordan Neely. Was his choke hold appropriate, was he
actually restricting his airflow? Was Jordan Neely dying from sickling?
And I think that those I mean, she could be right.
But at the same point, I still think that asking
(04:50):
about the medical examiner after, you know, in the middle
of their deliberation, seems like causation could be an issue.
But now that they've asked for a read back of
what is negligence versus recklessness manslaughter versus criminally negligent homicide,
there might be now at the point where they're seeing
if it was justified. They might have resolved the fact
that he killed Jordan Neely. But now it becomes whether
(05:11):
or not he was justified.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
So politically going forward, you know, politics is so cyclical.
What's trendy to prosecute in one period of time then
goes out of fashion. Do you think if this goes
down in it's a hungury or they find him, you know,
not liable that a prosecutor such as Alvin Bragg might
be more hesitant to bring such a case in the future.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
He should be. He should be. And let me tell
you this much what message.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
Look, this is a tragic okay, And when the prosecutors
say that Jordan Neely was a human being and he
shouldn't have died, you're right.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
But it was a failure of the city. He's a
failure of the city. And let me tell you something.
If if this turns into him being.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
Found guilty, and even the fact that he was brought
charges against him, what are people in the subway or
any in New York going to do now?
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Going to look the other way? Oh? You know what,
it's just I don't want to get in trouble or
be Hey, that's just New York. We have people all
around doing things.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
But if you take that mentality and you do that,
what could happen. That's the one thing that I you know,
the defense tried to I think they were trying to
amplify is Look, we don't know what Jordan Neely was
really going to do that day, but it created such
a danger in the minds of people that even the
prosecutor said Daniel Penny was justified in first restraining him.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
This question, this whole legal.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
Question, is how long he did it and the matter
of force he used. But they said he had a
right and he did the laudable thing to actually get
involved that day, and Yorkers are going to do that
after this.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
Case, right, Nobody disagrees with that. Jesse, thanks so much.
You're great. Jesse Weber News Nation legal contributor, anchor on
The Law and Crime Network and co host of wlr's
Always in Fashion. Right Here Saturday and Sunday at seven
p m. NASA would like to go back to the
Moon in twenty twenty six, abs he News Jim Ryan
(07:01):
gives us all the information. Next
We happen to have the best legal analysts. We share
them with News Nation. Jesse Weber is News Nation legal
contributor anchor on the Law and Crime Network. He's also
a co host right here of wo r's Always in Fashion,
which now airs both Saturday and Sunday at seven o'clock. Jesse,
thanks so much for being with us today, So read
(00:23):
the tea leaves for us. What do you see?
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Well, first of all, thanks coming, thanks for having me.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Sure.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
Look, I will say it's impossible to know what the
jury is thinking. You know, I have covered trials before
where a jury asks a question, and by the way,
this is a jury that is asking a lot of questions,
and you might take a guess as to what they're thinking,
but you really don't know. Having said that, the fact
that they are asking for a readback of testimony from
the medical example, the fact that they're looking at the
(00:49):
bodycam footage, they're looking at cell phone videos, the fact
that they have asked what is the definition of recklessness
versus negligence? Those are two different criminal charge is by
which Daniel Petty could be found guilty of. They seem
to be divided on a lot of things and it
could be that it might be one jur it might
be many jurors. You only need one juror to be
(01:11):
a holdout, and this could be a hung jury, Which
is why I think a lot of us in the
legal community are saying, you know, they've been deliberating for
a few days.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Is that where we're headed.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
Is that where we're headed where a jury does not
have a consensus. And if that's the case, and they
come back today and say, listen, judge, we can't come
to a decision, then the judge will instruct them.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
It's called an allen charge.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
Go back, deliberate, look at the evidence. This is a
very serious decision. But don't abandon your convictions. If you
really believe what you believe, don't abandon it just to
rush to a verdict. I think at this point it's
a really, really tough, close knit case. And I've had
this debate with people. They say, well, maybe you know
they're going to find a compromise verdict. They won't find
(01:53):
them guilty of the top charge of manslaughter, but to
find them guilty of criminally negligent homicide. But then I'm
also saying, this could be a situation where jurors are saying,
either he did.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Something wrong or he didn't do something wrong. Either he's
guilty or he's not guilty.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
And it's a really, really tough, tough case where you
had two diametrically opposed versions of what happened on that subway.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Let's say there is a home jury, Jesse, is there
a new trial? What happens next?
Speaker 2 (02:22):
I don't well, I don't think there should be. Yeah,
I think politically they shouldn't do it.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
This is a tough case for prosecutors to bring, both
legally and politically.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
You know, let me tell you something.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
At the beginning of this trial, every there was the
prosecution's case, they're burdened.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
They called the witnesses to the training.
Speaker 4 (02:39):
Now, these people that you would think would say, we
had no idea what Daniel Penny was doing.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
The guy, you know, Jordan Neely, wasn't a threat.
Speaker 4 (02:46):
Witness after witness after witness basically said we were in
fear for our lives. And I said, is this the
prosecution's case of the defense's case. And look as it
went on, they built it up and they said Jordan
Neely never had a weapon, he never put his hands
on anybody, you can't kill somebody because of making empty threats.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
They had a.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Medical examiner who said that even if Jordan Neely had
all the fent and all in his system that could
kill an elephant, he still died from the chokehold.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
And that was one of the things that the jury asked.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
Fact they wanted to read back of some of her
testimony when she was being questioned by the defense, and
so it's hard to know what they might be fixed.
There's two factors here, right, it's causation. Did Daniel Penny
kill Jordan Neely? And if he did, was it justified?
And those two questions are not so simple to resolve.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
You know, it's really fascinating. This is a good time,
by the way, for legal analysts. It seems like they're
all over television and talking about this case. It brings
me back to like the OJ Simpson trum. Everybody got
a job. Everybody got a job as a legal analyst.
We're so happy to have you. But one of them
said something fascinating. Because of what's being asked for in evidence,
(03:56):
she believed they either put aside or skipped right over
causation and went to justification. And she thought that was significant.
Do you agree.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
I don't believe that a jury will go back and forth.
Speaker 4 (04:10):
I mean, it took seventy five minutes for them, in
their deliberations to just ask for a read back of
the charges and the defenses. They might say, you know,
we want to I think they're still deliberating what the
causation issue as much as they're deliberating the legal justification issue, because.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
That's why I think they wanted to look.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
One of the things they're looking at, I imagine from
the video was the way in which Daniel Penny was
holding Jordan Neely. Was his choke hold appropriate, was he
actually restricting his airflow? Was Jordan Neely dying from sickling?
And I think that those I mean, she could be right.
But at the same point, I still think that asking
(04:50):
about the medical examiner after, you know, in the middle
of their deliberation, seems like causation could be an issue.
But now that they've asked for a read back of
what is negligence versus recklessness manslaughter versus criminally negligent homicide,
there might be now at the point where they're seeing
if it was justified. They might have resolved the fact
that he killed Jordan Neely. But now it becomes whether
(05:11):
or not he was justified.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
So politically going forward, you know, politics is so cyclical.
What's trendy to prosecute in one period of time then
goes out of fashion. Do you think if this goes
down in it's a hungury or they find him, you know,
not liable that a prosecutor such as Alvin Bragg might
be more hesitant to bring such a case in the future.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
He should be. He should be. And let me tell
you this much what message.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
Look, this is a tragic okay, And when the prosecutors
say that Jordan Neely was a human being and he
shouldn't have died, you're right.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
But it was a failure of the city. He's a
failure of the city. And let me tell you something.
If if this turns into him being.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
Found guilty, and even the fact that he was brought
charges against him, what are people in the subway or
any in New York going to do now?
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Going to look the other way? Oh? You know what,
it's just I don't want to get in trouble or
be Hey, that's just New York. We have people all
around doing things.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
But if you take that mentality and you do that,
what could happen. That's the one thing that I you know,
the defense tried to I think they were trying to
amplify is Look, we don't know what Jordan Neely was
really going to do that day, but it created such
a danger in the minds of people that even the
prosecutor said Daniel Penny was justified in first restraining him.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
This question, this whole legal.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
Question, is how long he did it and the matter
of force he used. But they said he had a
right and he did the laudable thing to actually get
involved that day, and Yorkers are going to do that
after this.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
Case, right, Nobody disagrees with that. Jesse, thanks so much.
You're great. Jesse Weber News Nation legal contributor, anchor on
The Law and Crime Network and co host of wlr's
Always in Fashion. Right Here Saturday and Sunday at seven
p m. NASA would like to go back to the
Moon in twenty twenty six, abs he News Jim Ryan
(07:01):
gives us all the information. Next
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Monster: BTK
'Monster: BTK', the newest installment in the 'Monster' franchise, reveals the true story of the Wichita, Kansas serial killer who murdered at least 10 people between 1974 and 1991. Known by the moniker, BTK – Bind Torture Kill, his notoriety was bolstered by the taunting letters he sent to police, and the chilling phone calls he made to media outlets. BTK's identity was finally revealed in 2005 to the shock of his family, his community, and the world. He was the serial killer next door. From Tenderfoot TV & iHeartPodcasts, this is 'Monster: BTK'.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.