DAVID A. SHEPHERD v. UNITED STATES, 144 A.3d 554

On June 2, 2012, David Shepherd shot and killed Henry "Chuck" Miller after a verbal confrontation outside 1128 Chicago St., SE; Shepherd drove away and led police on a high-speed chase before arrest.
Three eyewitnesses (Jayda Ingram, Milton Dickerson, and David White) testified that Shepherd walked up to Miller and shot him at close range; Shepherd claimed self-defense, testifying Miller pulled a gun and a struggle caused an accidental discharge.
Toxicology showed Miller’s BAC was .19; DNA testing showed Miller as a major contributor on the handgun swabs and cartridges, with Shepherd excluded on some cartridge swabs and a possible contributor on gun swabs.
Shepherd was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder while armed, related firearms offenses, fleeing police, and property destruction; he appealed.
On appeal Shepherd argued (1) the trial court abused its discretion by excluding detailed Gerstein statement facts about Miller’s prior domestic-violence assault (admissible as first-aggressor evidence), and (2) the court failed to cure significant prosecutorial misstatements in rebuttal.
The Court affirmed: it upheld the trial court’s balancing decision to exclude inflammatory details while admitting the convictions’ fact, and held that prosecutorial misstatements—though present—did not substantially prejudice Shepherd given corrective instructions and the strong government case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Shepherd)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Admissibility of detailed prior-act (Gerstein) statement about Miller’s 2010 domestic assault	Gerstein details were admissible as first-aggressor evidence to show decedent’s violent character and support self-defense	Details were overly inflammatory, of limited probative value on who brought the gun, and risked unfair prejudice/confusing the jury	Court affirmed exclusion of Gerstein details; admitting only the convictions was within trial court discretion because probative value was minimal and prejudice high
Prosecutorial misstatements during rebuttal and adequacy of remedy	Misstatements (about DNA, Shepherd’s hand placement, and phrasing of "I keep it with me") were improper and prejudicial; court should have taken stronger corrective action	Misstatements were imprecise but minor in context; themes argued were supported by evidence; judge’s instruction that arguments are not evidence sufficed	Court held misstatements did not cause substantial prejudice given context, jury instructions, and strength of government’s case; no abuse of discretion

Johnson v. United States, 452 A.2d 959 (D.C. 1982) (first‑aggressor evidence admissible to show decedent’s violent character for self‑defense claim)
Johnson v. United States, 960 A.2d 281 (D.C. 2008) (limits on admissibility of prior acts where remote or different in type)
Hawkins v. United States, 461 A.2d 1025 (D.C. 1983) (trial court discretion to exclude prior‑act evidence when prejudicial or remote)
Evans v. United States, 277 F.2d 354 (D.C. Cir. 1960) (admitting evidence that deceased was aggressive when drunk as relevant to self‑defense)
Burks v. United States, 470 F.2d 432 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (focus is on what the deceased probably did; probative value analysis)
Finch v. United States, 867 A.2d 222 (D.C. 2005) (framework for assessing improper prosecutorial comments and remedial measures)
Clayborne v. United States, 751 A.2d 960 (D.C. 2000) (deference to trial judge on closing‑argument regulation and juror discernment)
Lee v. United States, 668 A.2d 822 (D.C. 1995) (prosecutors must choose words carefully; misstatements risk reversible prejudice)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (harmless‑error standard assessing substantial prejudice)