Alvin Braggs bizarre antics told Daniel Penny jury the trial was just a sham

The acquittal last Monday of former Marine Daniel Penny is a blow to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg: The jury came to the common-sense judgment that Penny was justified in subduing a threatening vagrant, Jordan Neely, on a subway last May.Worse for Bragg is that his office’s own bizarre actions may have tipped the jury in Penny’s favor.The jury of seven women and five men heard almost five weeks’ worth of arguments and evidence and deliberated for almost a week.And it ultimately came to a sound verdict on one of two charges: Penny had not acted in a criminally negligent way that led to Neely’s death.But a puzzle remains: Why did the jury deadlock on the stronger count — manslaughter, with its potential 15-year-sentence — before acquitting on the weaker count, with its four-year possible sentence?Logic dictates that if Penny wasn’t guilty of the weaker count, he must not be guilty of the stronger count.So what changed the jury’s thinking, between the Friday deadlock and a Monday acquittal?One answer: Bragg’s office made it clear before the intervening weekend that the trial was a sham.Put yourself in a juror’s position.

Counting two weeks of jury selection, you’ve been in court seven weeks, and you’ve endured autopsy photos and complex medical testimony.You’ve done this because you’ve been told, since Day 1, how important this case is.During voir dire, the prosecutor, ADA Dafna Yoran, asked you, personally: Can you, if the evidence leads you to do so, convict this man of manslaughter?  And during her closing argument, Yoran reminded you of this responsibility: “I told you it would not be easy,” she said.“But you each said that you could find someone guilty of recklessly killing another person.”Now, though, you’ve pored over this testimony in days of deliberations, asking for a readback of the medical examiner’s testimony, asking to review videos, and asking the judge what “reasonable” means in the context of ...