The case drew national attention, polarizing public opinion and sparking debates about self-defense, public safety, and the role of prosecutors in politically charged cases. Penny’s defense team now seeks to hold Bragg and his office accountable for what they describe as a politically motivated prosecution.
Steven Raiser, one of Penny’s attorneys, criticized DA Bragg’s office for pursuing charges that he argues were unjustified from the start. “It’s time to turn the tables and put the focus on Alvin Bragg,” Raiser said during a Fox & Friends interview. He accused Bragg’s office of bringing the case to court without sufficient evidence, solely to appease political pressures.
“They wanted to try and get him on something,” Raiser said, referring to the charges filed against Penny. “They knew they weren’t going to be able to get him, so they downgraded the charges, hoping for a conviction. Thankfully, they were unsuccessful.”
Penny was initially charged with second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide for Neely’s death. The charges stemmed from a subway altercation in which Neely allegedly threatened passengers. Penny intervened by placing Neely in a chokehold, which led to his death.
Prosecutors eventually dropped the manslaughter charge after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on that count. On Monday, the jury acquitted Penny of criminally negligent homicide, concluding the highly publicized trial.
Raiser didn’t stop at Bragg. He also accused the city’s medical examiner’s office of colluding with the district attorney to expedite findings that would support the prosecution’s case. “The record was made fairly clear as to the extent of the medical examiner’s involvement and what occurred here,” Raiser said.
The attorney claimed that the medical examiner, appointed by New York City Mayor Eric Adams, acted under pressure from Bragg’s office to quickly classify Neely’s death as a homicide. Raiser suggested this expedited process was part of a broader effort to bolster the case against Penny.
“There was collusion there, and the collusion began from the very beginning of this case and carried all the way through,” Raiser said. “The district attorney needed the medical examiner to act quickly, and that’s exactly what happened.”
The death of Jordan Neely, a man with a history of mental illness and multiple arrests, became a flashpoint for discussions about public safety, mental health resources, and racial tensions. Critics of Penny argued that his actions were reckless and unjustified, while supporters contended that he acted in defense of himself and other passengers.
The case also placed DA Alvin Bragg under scrutiny. Bragg, who has faced criticism for his handling of other high-profile cases, was accused of pursuing the charges against Penny to align with political narratives rather than the facts of the case.
The jury’s not guilty verdict on the criminally negligent homicide charge marked the end of the trial but not the broader debate surrounding the case.
If Penny’s legal team moves forward with their lawsuit, it could focus on the alleged “blurring of ethical lines” by Bragg’s office. Raiser indicated that the medical examiner’s role would also be scrutinized as part of the case.
Malicious prosecution lawsuits require plaintiffs to prove that charges were filed without probable cause and with malice or improper motives. Raiser’s comments suggest he believes the case against Penny meets those criteria.
“This lawsuit is about accountability,” Raiser said. “It’s not just about clearing Daniel’s name—it’s about ensuring that no one else is subjected to a politically driven prosecution like this.”
The fallout from the Penny case could have lasting implications for how high-profile prosecutions are handled, especially those involving significant public and political pressure. Critics of Bragg’s office argue that the case represents a disturbing trend of politicizing the justice system, while supporters contend that the charges were a necessary response to a tragic loss of life.
As Penny’s legal team considers its next steps, the case remains a lightning rod for broader discussions about justice, fairness, and the balance between public safety and accountability.
Whether or not the lawsuit proceeds, the controversy surrounding the prosecution—and the subsequent acquittal—ensures that the case will remain a topic of debate for years to come.
