Daniel Penny: Subway Hero? Or Racist Murderer?

↑ icedcoffee ↓

Yesterday at 10:06 am

shoshanim999 wrote:

I don't know the law but it doesn't make sense that the prosecutor can simply request a charge be dropped during the trial if the jury deadlocked and then have them consider a lesser charge. And then I suppose if the jury can't decide again go 1 tier lower again?

Isn't that precisely the risk the prosecutor takes when deciding on the charges? If they aim too high the jury will either acquit or deadlock and have a mistrial.

And more importantly, the defense team didn't defend Penny against the lower charge. Their witnesses didn't necessarily help Penny with the lower charge. They were defending Penny against the manslaughter charge. How would it make sense for the jury to consider a negligent homicide verdict when Penny's defense team wasn't defending him for that? Can someone explain?

He faced both charges from the beginning - it's not like they switched it up and introduced a random charge after the jury was deadlocked. In any scenario the jury would have had to come up with a verdict on this charge after the first one.

It is a little confusing because at least one person thought he was guilty of the more severe charge but didn't feel the same way about the lesser one. Could be jury fatigue, wanting it to end already, or maybe they felt the prosecution was playing games by dismissing the first charge and didn't appreciate that. But nothing against the "rules" happened.

↑ Fox ↓

Yesterday at 10:48 am

icedcoffee wrote:

My understanding is that in virtually all jurisdictions, it's easier to add additional charges than remove them. Not necessarily from a strictly legal point of view, but from a strategic standpoint. So most SA/DA offices try to intially under-charge and add additional charges if they feel they can easily prove them.

We had a situation in Chicago recently with Sidi Mohamed Abdallahi, the Mauratainian national who shot a Jewish man. Initially, the SA's office did not charge him with a hate crime. Many people were very upset about this and vented their frustration on social media. But it was carefully planned: only when police were able to find incontrovertible evidence was a hate crime charge added. As it turns out, Mr. Abdallahi met his death in jail, presumably by his own hand, though nobody seems terribly inclined to investigate.

When the SA/DA overcharges, it offers a huge opportunity for defense attorneys to use the fact as a "thin edge of the wedge" and create reasonable doubt about all the charges. That seems to have been a factor here. It increases the perception that Bragg's office was more interested in the publicity than actually seeking justice.

↑ miami85 ↓

Yesterday at 1:38 pm

icedcoffee wrote:

I'm not a lawyer, but I heard several legal analysts say--admittedly it was Friday afternoon so I didn't catch everything that they said-- that the strategy of how they would've presented the case would've been different had he been facing only the lower charge. Thus, if he would've been found guilty it would've been something having to do with the strategy. I think kind of in bowling. Even though you still want to get "all the pins down" If you have a split you use one strategy vs if they are in a cluster. If you dont see one pin hiding behind another pin you might've thrown the ball differently.

The rule the judge broke is in how he dropped the manslaughter charge without dismissing the entire case and declaring the a mistrial.

↑ icedcoffee ↓

Yesterday at 2:29 pm

miami85 wrote:

I'm sure the prosecutors would've approached their argument differently if they were going only for the lesser charge from the start. But they obviously hoped they could get him on the higher one. Once they realized they weren't getting a guilty verdict on that charge, they had to make a decision - mistrial or agree to dismiss the first charge in the hopes of getting him on the second? That would be better than nothing. I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on here! They made a strategic decision in the moment to try to get one bowling pin instead of none.

The judge didn't break a rule though. All of this is allowed. A motion to dismiss is part of the strategy both sides can play. My husband's career is based on understanding this stuff - he's been on TV as a legal expert too except he's on parental leave now so hasn't been covering this specific trial Smile

↑ allthingsblue

Yesterday at 2:32 pm

Fox wrote:

So are you saying it was better for Chicago to wait to add the hate crime charge until they were certain, rather than have charged him right away and risk the defendant (now dead) getting off entirely?

↑ fleetwood ↓

Yesterday at 2:40 pm

miami85 wrote:

There is no such rule I don't think

↑ Cheiny ↓

Yesterday at 3:13 pm

icedcoffee wrote:

It's the prosecutors who requested the top charge be dropped, in the hopes they could get him on the lesser charge instead of having a mistrial. The judge simply approved their request. What rule was broken?

The judge instructed the jury in a way that suggested they should focus on finding him guilty of a lesser charge since they originally couldn’t agree on the most serious charge.

↑ miami85

Yesterday at 7:36 pm

fleetwood wrote:

There is no such rule I don't think

According to Google: A judge generally cannot directly change the charges against a defendant; this is primarily the responsibility of the prosecutor, who can amend charges based on new evidence or legal considerations, but they would need to petition the court to do so. A judge's role is to oversee the legal process and decide on the validity of the charges presented, not to alter them without a proper motion from the prosecutor or defense attorney.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/dan.....-case

Watch the video if you can, I believe they discussed why it wasn't appropriate and why it changed the case.

↑ icedcoffee

Yesterday at 8:01 pm

miami85 wrote:

But there was a proper motion just like this Google quote says. The prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss. The judge allowed it.

↑ fleetwood ↓

Today at 3:12 am

miami85 wrote:

I assumed the prosecutor asked for this...did he not ?