The justice system in New York City came to the correct conclusion in finding subway hero Daniel Penny not guilty in the self-defense death of Jordan Nelly, who was threating to harm people on Penny’s subway car. But during their coverage of the breaking news, MSNBC liberals expressed hope that Neely’s family could “find justice” in a civil trial against Penny, and ridiculously compared it to the OJ Simpson murder trial.
“The breaking news here, Daniel Penny found not guilty. But Lisa, we also know that Jordan Neely's family filed had filed – I believe – a civil suit in this case as well. Does the verdict in this case impact that?” host Ana Cabrera asked legal correspondent Lisa Rubin while filling in for Jose Diaz-Balart.
Rubin responded immediately with a message that could bring some solace to MSNBC’s far-left audience about how the Neely family could still “find justice.” “Not necessarily. I mean, the law is rife with examples of people who are acquitted in criminal cases and yet find justice with respect to civil accountability,” she proclaimed.
Her go-to example was a ridiculous comparison to the OJ Simpson murder trial and subsequent civil trial:
I think the best example of that is with respect to Fred Goldman's family. Fred Goldman -- I'm sorry, Ron Goldman being the man who was murdered alongside Nicole Brown Simpson. Even though OJ Simpson was never found criminally guilty for those two murders, Fred Goldman, the father along with his daughter then sued OJ civilly and won a fairly large verdict with respect to civil liability for OJ Simpson.
What made her example particularly ghoulish was the fact that the death of Nicole Brown Simpson involved cold-blooded murder and not a self-defense situation. That’s not to mention that while the Penny trial did have notoriety, it paled in comparison to the circus that was the OJ Simpson trial which divided the nation and may have played a role in the civil verdict.
“There are many other examples of similar disjuncture between criminal court and what happens with respect to a wrongful death action for example by a family,” she boasted.
Further, Rubin seemed to baselessly suggest that something improper had happened with the jury and the reading of the verdict, and wanted jurors to speak out to the her and the rest of the media about it (Click "expand"):
Ana, one of the things that came across is the jury was not polled here in delivering their verdict. That means, nobody asked the jurors one at a time to confirm that this is their verdict. That means we didn't get to hear from the people who are on this jury.
And one thing that I'm really curious about is whether or not there are people on the jury who feel like they want to speak out because, again, if they could not reach a unanimous verdict to find him guilty, based on the prior experiences, they may have concluded they were never going to reach a unanimous verdict. That doesn't mean there weren't people on this jury who would have voted to find Daniel Penny guilty, particularly given how fraught this case is, given what else is going on in the city of New York, as Antonia was very vividly describing.
I’ll be curious to see if any jurors come forward and want to tell their story to folks like us.
A couple hours later, during Chris Jansing Reports, reporter Antonia Hylton would whine that Penny’s supporters celebrated the verdict while Neely’s were “mourning” it:
An incredibly emotional morning inside the courtroom as this verdict came down. The supporters of Daniel Penny were in celebration while the family members of Jordan Neely began to breakdown. His father had to be escorted out of the courtroom. A woman fell to her knees in mourning. And outside here on the street, several dozen protesters were chanting, expressing outrage. At one point, a physical altercation broke out.
In the second hour of the show, Jansing suggested that the jury didn’t properly check their fears of riding on the unsafe New York City subway system. “Is it possible to separate fears or thoughts about what it's like on the subway system from jury deliberations?” she asked Rubin.
“Yes and no,” Rubin prefaced. “Jurors are asked prior to being seated whether they have certain biases or prejudices that might disqualify them from service. But of course, this is a jury made up of Manhattanites” who have likely all experienced something while riding the subway.
Rubin also tried to cast doubt on any fears people had about the New York City subway system by saying New Yorkers were “fed up with what they perceive to be the lack of safety on MTA public transit.”
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:
MSNBC’s José Díaz-Balart Reports
December 9, 2024
11:40:30 a.m. Eastern(…)
ANA CABRERA: The breaking news here, Daniel Penny found not guilty. But Lisa, we also know that Jordan Neely's family filed had filed – I believe – a civil suit in this case as well. Does the verdict in this case impact that?
LISA RUBIN: Not necessarily. I mean, the law is rife with examples of people who are acquitted in criminal cases and yet find justice with respect to civil accountability.
I think the best example of that is with respect to Fred Goldman's family. Fred Goldman -- I'm sorry, Ron Goldman being the man who was murdered alongside Nicole Brown Simpson. Even though OJ Simpson was never found criminally guilty for those two murders, Fred Goldman, the father along with his daughter then sued OJ civilly and won a fairly large verdict with respect to civil liability for OJ Simpson.
There are many other examples of similar disjuncture between criminal court and what happens with respect to a wrongful death action for example by a family.
(…)
Chris Jansing Reports
11:43:19 a.m. Eastern
RUBIN: Ana, one of the things that came across is the jury was not polled here in delivering their verdict. That means, nobody asked the jurors one at a time to confirm that this is their verdict. That means we didn't get to hear from the people who are on this jury.
And one thing that I'm really curious about is whether or not there are people on the jury who feel like they want to speak out because, again, if they could not reach a unanimous verdict to find him guilty, based on the prior experiences, they may have concluded they were never going to reach a unanimous verdict. That doesn't mean there weren't people on this jury who would have voted to find Daniel Penny guilty, particularly given how fraught this case is, given what else is going on in the city of New York, as Antonia was very vividly describing.
I’ll be curious to see if any jurors come forward and want to tell their story to folks like us.
CABRERA: Yeah. Me too.
(…)
Chris Jansing Reports
1:33:13 p.m. Eastern
ANTONIA HYLTON: An incredibly emotional morning inside the courtroom as this verdict came down. The supporters of Daniel Penny were in celebration while the family members of Jordan Neely began to breakdown. His father had to be escorted out of the courtroom. A woman fell to her knees in mourning. And outside here on the street, several dozen protesters were chanting, expressing outrage. At one point, a physical altercation broke out.
(…)
2:50:54 p.m. Eastern
CHRIS JANSING: Is it possible to separate fears or thoughts about what it's like on the subway system from jury deliberations?
RUBIN: Yes and no. Right? Jurors are asked prior to being seated whether they have certain biases or prejudices that might disqualify them from service. But of course, this is a jury made up of Manhattanites. This was a case tried by the Manhattan district attorney's office. So, everybody on that jury lives on this island and, of course, most if not all of them have experiences every day with public transportation.
You're right to say that we're at a moment right now, particularly here in New York, where folks are fed up with what they perceive to be the lack of safety on MTA public transit.
(…)
