A defense-hired medical examiner testified in Manhattan on Thursday that Jordan Neely’s death was not caused by the chokehold applied by Daniel Penny. The testimony emerged during Penny’s trial, where he faces charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide for restraining Neely, a homeless man with schizophrenia, on a New York City subway train in May 2023.
Dr. Satish Chundru, a forensic pathologist from Texas, argued that Neely’s death was the result of a combination of factors, including pre-existing health conditions and the stress of the encounter, rather than the chokehold itself.
Dr. Cynthia Harris, the medical examiner who conducted Neely’s autopsy, had previously testified that the chokehold applied by Penny caused Neely to asphyxiate. She pointed to visible injuries and video evidence of the incident to support her conclusion. Chundru disputed her assessment, claiming that her theories lacked medical grounding and did not align with standard forensic findings.
“This is not a chokehold death,” he stated, asserting that the injuries described by Harris were inconsistent with asphyxiation caused by neck compression. He added that there were no signs, such as burst blood vessels in Neely’s eyelids, that he would typically expect in such cases.
Central to Penny’s defense is the argument that Neely’s pre-existing conditions—including schizophrenia, sickle cell trait, and synthetic cannabinoids found in his system—contributed to his sudden death. Chundru explained that these factors, combined with the stress of the situation, likely triggered a fatal cardiac event. Research, he noted, shows that individuals with schizophrenia or sickle cell trait face heightened risks of sudden cardiac arrest under physical strain.
When asked if Neely could have died without being placed in a chokehold, Chundru responded affirmatively. He also testified that a healthy individual subjected to the same restraint would not have died.
During cross-examination, Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran questioned the credibility of Chundru’s testimony. She highlighted discrepancies between his current conclusions and past public statements, as well as his extensive workload. Yoran noted that Chundru claimed to have conducted around 9,000 autopsies during his career—far exceeding professional recommendations for annual caseloads.
Additionally, Yoran presented excerpts from medical textbooks, including one authored by a mentor of Chundru, to challenge his assertion that Harris’s theories were unfounded. Under questioning, Chundru acknowledged that some of Harris’s interpretations appeared in forensic literature.
Yoran also scrutinized Chundru’s reliance on statements made during the subway incident, including one from Eric Gonzalez, a bystander who assisted Penny in restraining Neely. Gonzalez was heard in a video saying that Penny wasn’t squeezing, but he later testified that he made the remark to calm other passengers and couldn’t confirm Penny’s actions at the time.
When pressed on the possibility that Penny had been applying pressure during critical moments, Chundru admitted, “Anything’s possible.”
The outcome of Penny’s trial hinges on whether prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions directly caused Neely’s death. The defense aims to create enough uncertainty to prevent a conviction. Jurors must decide whether Neely’s death was a tragic result of his health conditions and circumstances or a consequence of Penny’s actions on the train that day.
