Proceedings continued into the third day without a verdict in the second-degree manslaughter case against Long Island native Daniel Penny in the chokehold death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man killed on a city subway train last year.

A Manhattan jury pored over video footage and considered complex legal theories but could not reach a consensus on whether Penny acted to protect herself and others on the F train on May 1, 2023, when Neely, who suffered from schizophrenia, stormed through the door and announced that he was ready to go to prison for the rest of his life.

Penny is on trial for second-degree manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. He faces a maximum of 15 years in prison, but as a first-time offender he could receive no prison sentence.

The panel of five men and seven women has written seven notes requesting testimony and evidence since Supreme Court Justice Maxwell Wiley handed the case to them Tuesday afternoon.

On Thursday morning, court reporters continued to read the testimony given to the jury on Wednesday by city medical examiner Dr. Cynthia Harris, who determined Neely’s death was a homicide by strangulation.

Harris had testified that she reached her conclusion by conducting an autopsy on Neely’s body and closely examining a bystander’s cell phone video of the fight between the two men.

Harris told jurors during cross-examination that she did not wait for the toxicology tests to return before reaching her decision and that her conclusion would have been the same even if she later found out he had enough fentanyl in his had a body to “knock someone down”. Elephant.”

Harris also told the court during his testimony that determining the cause of death was more art than science. She also said she couldn’t be sure that “sufficient consistent pressure” was applied to Neely’s neck to kill him.

The jury also asked the judge to reread the legal definitions of recklessness and criminal negligence.

New York law defines recklessness as when someone “engages in conduct that creates or contributes to a substantial and unjustified risk of death to another person.” This person must be aware of the risk and consciously disregard it. Finally, that person’s conduct must represent a “gross departure from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the particular situation.”

The judge told the jury that a person has committed manslaughter when “a person engages in reprehensible conduct that is so serious that it creates a substantial and unjustified risk or contributes to the death of another person.” . The person need not be aware that the conduct could result in a person’s death if any reasonable person could recognize that the conduct was dangerous.

The trial began Oct. 21 with jury selection and could drag on into next week if the panel doesn’t reach consensus.

The jury will return Friday to continue deliberations.