Reading the tea leaves.

On today’s fourth day of deliberations, the New York Post reports that the jury in the homicide trial in Manhattan has sent the court a note saying it is deeply divided on count one: the second-degree manslaughter charge, specifically on the question of whether Penny recklessly caused Jordan Neely’s death.

I’ve observed a few times now that I don’t see how this is a recklessness case, and that Manhattan’s elected progressive Democratic district attorney, Alvin Bragg, added the manslaughter charge to increase the chance that the jury would compromise and convict Penny of the negligence charge.

According to arguments made by Penny’s counsel, Manhattan’s jury process is that the panel is supposed to resolve count one before moving on to count two. Penny’s lawyers are arguing to Judge Maxwell Wiley that the jury should not consider the second count if it can’t agree on the first. Dafna Yoran, the ADA trying the case, objects and wants the jury told to proceed to deliberate on count two. The judge is considering whether to push the jury to resolve count one — the so-called Allen charge.

When I first learned of the deadlock on count one, I assumed it was a bad sign for Penny: If some jurors believe recklessness has been proved, that would lead one to assume the jury would have an easier time finding Penny guilty of negligence, count two. Again, that, I believe, is why Bragg indicted the negligence charge.

Nevertheless, if the jury hasn’t even considered negligent homicide yet, it could mean that there are a number of jurors who believe Penny is not guilty, period, and won’t convict him of negligence, either. That would suggest we are headed for a hung jury.

The maximum penalty for negligent homicide is four years — compared to 15 for the manslaughter charge.

We’ll keep monitoring.