Every now and then justice is vindicated and right triumphs over wrong.

With its not guilty verdict Monday, a Manhattan jury unanimously sent a strong message to District Attorney Alvin Bragg that he wrongly prosecuted a good Samaritan. A man who courageously came to the aid of subway passengers who were threatened with imminent death. Not that Bragg would care.

The case against Marine veteran Daniel Penny should never have been initiated. It was a gross injustice. Under the law, he was justified in using reasonable force – even deadly force – to subdue a madman who vowed to murder passengers as soon as he boarded a subway car. This man, Jordan Neely, initiated the confrontation and died as a result of his own threatening and illegal actions.

DANIEL PENNY FOUND NOT GUILTY IN SUBWAY STRANGLEHOLD TRIAL

Instead of being praised, Penny was pilloried as a bigoted vigilante by the usual band of racial justice campaigners who longed to turn Neely’s death into another George Floyd transgression. Bragg, who views everything through the prism of race and politics, was more than happy to oblige. During the trial, his main accuser referred to Penny as “the white man.” It was reprehensible.

But in the end, 12 different jurors refused to put up with the blatant race-baiting. They were well-versed in the dangers of New York City’s treacherous subway system, which has seen a 60% increase in murders this year, according to police statistics. Stabbings, shootings, beatings and robberies now seem to be commonplace as criminals move freely around the underground transportation system in search of their next victims.

The jury accepted as true the statements of the passengers – some of them black – that they were grateful when Penny came to their aid. Neely terrorized her. They panicked and feared that their lives would soon end. The former Marine was not a villain, but was perceived by those in danger as their charitable and heroic figure.

Bragg did not care about the innocent sufferers who were threatened with death. At the heart of his vision of “restorative justice” has always been the protection of criminals. During the trial, his prosecutors contemptuously dismissed passengers’ accounts of what happened that terrible day while manipulating evidence to turn Neely from villain into victim.

ANDREW MCCARTHY: PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE MOCK JUSTICE IN TRIAL OF SUBWAY HERO DANIEL PENNY

Bad decisions by the bank made Penny’s defense even more difficult. As the jury deadlocked on the most serious count of manslaughter after nearly 30 hours of deliberations, Judge Maxwell Wiley agreed to the prosecutor’s request to withdraw the charge, even though prosecutors had told jurors for weeks that the defendant was guilty.

The judge’s decision was inadmissible. He contradicted his own earlier ruling that the jury could do so only Consider the lower number of criminally negligent homicides if they First found Penny “not guilty” on the top count. That didn’t happen. The judge seemed to agree that dismissal was inadmissible, but then did it anyway.

In fact, the rules governing criminal procedure require a mistrial in the event of a jury inconclusive decision unless the defense agrees to dismissal. Penny’s lawyers did not do this.

It may seem unusual or contradictory that a jury could deadlock on the more serious crime but acquit the defendant on the lesser charge. However, jurors are allowed to change their minds during deliberations by reexamining the evidence and considering counterarguments behind closed doors.

While he may be stupid enough to try, Bragg cannot re-charge Penny with involuntary manslaughter, which he voluntarily dismissed during his deliberations. Jeopardy arises when a jury is appointed and sworn in. Therefore, a second prosecution would be prohibited under the constitutional doctrine of double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE OPINIONS ON FOX NEWS

Inevitably, social justice activists immediately condemned Penny’s acquittal and intensified their protests. Protesters outside the New York courthouse chanted “No justice, no peace,” the implicit threat of violent unrest that became a loud symbol of the Black Lives Matter movement. If nothing else, the mob is relentless.

Just minutes after the verdict was announced, BLM-affiliated provocateurs unleashed inflammatory threats, calling for “black vigilantes” and “retaliation.” Their goal is to foment racial hatred under the guise of egalitarian justice. They condemned the outcome of the trial as a victory for white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan.

It is a sad measure of our times that such despicable demagoguery has a dedicated audience of mindless followers.

For Daniel Penny, the jury’s correct decision represents immediate relief from the criminal ordeal he has endured with dignity over the past 18 months. He is acquitted but unjustly tainted. He still faces a civil lawsuit filed late last week by Neely’s absent father.

I would not let the plaintiff’s case prevent him from having a successful future. While the standard of proof in a civil lawsuit is lower, any recoverable damages would be speculative and minimal.

Typically, a parent sues for loss of companionship or future financial support. There are none here. A destitute and estranged son with little or no contact with his father would not achieve any significant windfall.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Unfortunately, the greater societal damage caused by Bragg’s unjustified case may be borne by future crime victims in New York and perhaps elsewhere. Knowing that an elected district attorney is intent on prosecuting well-meaning Samaritans will likely discourage him from defending others who are being exploited. The weak and vulnerable among us could become easier targets.

This is the tragic epitaph of the Daniel Penny trial.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT