Penny’s Team Considers Malicious Prosecution Suit Against DA Bragg

The high-profile trial of Daniel Penny may have concluded with his acquittal, but the legal battle is far from over. Penny’s defense team is now considering a malicious prosecution lawsuit against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, accusing his office of pursuing politically motivated charges in the controversial NYC subway chokehold case.

The trial centered on Penny’s actions during a subway altercation that resulted in the death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man with a history of mental illness and arrests. Penny, a former Marine, intervened when Neely allegedly began threatening passengers, restraining him in a chokehold that led to his death. Penny was charged with second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.

Eric Thompson Podcast

While prosecutors ultimately dropped the manslaughter charge after the jury deadlocked, Penny was acquitted on the remaining charge of criminally negligent homicide, ending a trial that sparked nationwide debate about self-defense, public safety, and prosecutorial conduct.

Steven Raiser, one of Penny’s attorneys, didn’t mince words in his criticism of Bragg’s office, accusing the district attorney of filing charges under political pressure rather than evidence. “It’s time to turn the tables and put the focus on Alvin Bragg,” Raiser said during a televised interview.

“They wanted to try and get him on something,” Raiser alleged. “They knew they weren’t going to be able to convict him, so they downgraded the charges, hoping for a win. Thankfully, they were unsuccessful.”

The defense’s frustration extended beyond the district attorney. Raiser also accused the New York City medical examiner’s office of colluding with Bragg’s team to expedite findings that supported the prosecution’s narrative.

“The record was made fairly clear as to the extent of the medical examiner’s involvement,” Raiser said. “There was collusion there from the very beginning of this case, and it carried all the way through. The district attorney needed the medical examiner to act quickly, and that’s exactly what happened.”

The medical examiner, appointed by New York City Mayor Eric Adams, classified Neely’s death as a homicide—a key component of the case against Penny. Raiser suggested that this determination was influenced by political considerations, further undermining the integrity of the prosecution.

The death of Jordan Neely ignited widespread discussions about public safety, mental health resources, and racial dynamics in America. Critics of Penny argued that his actions were excessive and reckless, while supporters maintained he acted to protect himself and others.

The case also placed DA Alvin Bragg under intense scrutiny. Critics accused Bragg of pursuing the case to align with political narratives rather than basing decisions on the facts. Bragg has faced similar allegations in other high-profile cases, leading to questions about the role of political pressure in his prosecutorial decisions.

If Penny’s legal team proceeds with a malicious prosecution lawsuit, it will aim to prove that the charges were filed without probable cause and with malicious intent. Raiser’s statements indicate he believes the case against Penny meets these criteria, pointing to what he described as “blurring of ethical lines” by Bragg’s office.

“This lawsuit is about accountability,” Raiser explained. “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.”

Malicious prosecution lawsuits are challenging to win, as they require plaintiffs to meet a high burden of proof. However, the public nature of Penny’s trial and the intense scrutiny on Bragg’s office could provide a unique platform for the case.

The fallout from the Penny trial will likely have lasting implications for how high-profile prosecutions are handled, particularly in cases where political and social pressures are at play.

Critics of Bragg argue that the case reflects a dangerous trend of politicizing the justice system, potentially eroding public trust in its fairness. Conversely, supporters contend that the charges against Penny were necessary to ensure accountability for Neely’s death.

As Penny’s legal team evaluates its options, the case remains a lightning rod for broader conversations about justice, fairness, and the balance between public safety and prosecutorial discretion.

Whether or not a lawsuit is filed, the controversy surrounding Penny’s prosecution ensures that the case will remain a topic of debate for years to come. For Penny’s supporters, his acquittal is a vindication of his actions and a rebuke of Bragg’s office. For his detractors, the trial’s outcome is a reminder of the complexities and challenges of pursuing justice in a polarized society.

The next chapter in this legal saga, if it unfolds, could shine an even brighter spotlight on the contentious intersection of law, politics, and public opinion.