The trial of Daniel Penny, accused of causing the death of Jordan Neely on an uptown F train, took an unexpected turn as forensic pathologist Dr. Satish Chundru testified for the defense. Chundru disputed the findings of city medical examiner Dr. Cynthia Harris, who concluded that Neely died as a result of a chokehold.
Chundru, drawing on his experience as a medical examiner in Austin and Miami, criticized Harris’s quick ruling and pointed out that it was made before the toxicology report was available. He argued that a chokehold death involves two phases: rendering the person unconscious and sustaining pressure to cause death. According to Chundru, Neely had already passed away or was in the process of dying before going limp, contradicting the prosecution’s claim that Penny held him in a chokehold after he lost consciousness.
Instead, Chundru attributed Neely’s death to a combination of factors, including synthetic marijuana use, schizophrenia, the struggle and restraint during the altercation, and sickle cell crisis. The defense’s argument focused on challenging the prosecution’s narrative by raising doubts about the cause of death.
Throughout the trial, Harris presented a compelling case, supported by witness testimonies from bystanders who experienced fear during the incident on the subway. However, Chundru’s testimony successfully raised questions about the prosecution’s claims and provided an alternative explanation for Neely’s death.
During a tense cross-examination, Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran attempted to undermine Chundru’s credibility by questioning his motives and expertise. Despite the aggressive line of questioning, Chundru remained composed and defended his findings.
The trial is set to continue next week, with the defense and prosecution presenting their closing arguments. The case highlights the complexities of forensic pathology and the challenges of determining the cause of death in cases involving multiple factors. The outcome of the trial will ultimately depend on the jury’s assessment of the evidence presented by both sides.
