In New York City, a forensic pathologist hired by the defense team of Daniel Penny testified that Jordan Neely did not die from a chokehold, but rather from a combination of various factors. Penny faces charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in connection to Neely’s death on a subway train. Dr. Satish Chundru, the pathologist, refuted the findings of a New York City medical examiner who concluded that Neely died due to compression to his neck from a chokehold.
Chundru, an expert witness for the defense team, shared his opinion that Neely’s death resulted from a combination of sickle cell crisis, schizophrenia, struggle, restraint, and synthetic marijuana in his system. The defense team hired him a little over two weeks after Neely’s death. Neely, who had a history of mental illness, exhibited distressing behavior on the subway train before Penny, a passenger, restrained him in a chokehold which ultimately led to his death.
Prosecutors have claimed that Penny held Neely in the chokehold for six minutes until he became unconscious. The incident, captured in a widely shared bystander video, sparked differing opinions among the public, with some praising Penny’s actions while others condemned him as a vigilante. Chundru’s testimony contradicted that of Dr. Cynthia Harris, the medical examiner who conducted Neely’s autopsy and determined that he died as a result of the chokehold.
Harris, a witness for the prosecution, stood by her findings stating that Neely’s cause of death was asphyxiation. However, Chundru criticized her for issuing a ruling before completing all necessary tests. Both pathologists presented their perspectives in court, with the defense team attempting to undermine Harris’s conclusions. Neely’s family sat through the testimonies, visibly affected by the content presented.
In addition to the pathology evidence, character witnesses were called by the defense team to testify to Penny’s empathy, honesty, and integrity. This testimony followed earlier claims by prosecutors that Penny had lied during police interviews. The trial continues with both sides presenting their respective arguments and evidence to the jury. The case has put a spotlight on the use of force and the consequences of such actions in a public setting, raising questions about accountability and justice.