‘Traumatic and Indiscriminate Act of Violence,’ Says Prosecution of Non-Fatal Shooting Suspects

By Leah Meyer - February 12, 2025
Court | Daily Stories | Non-Fatal Shooting | Suspects |

The jury trial for two non-fatal shooting codefendants ended with closing arguments before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt on Feb. 10. 

Chantel Stewart, 33, and Daniel Cary, 30, are charged with two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, five counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, and threat to kidnap or injure a person for their alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting that occurred on July 22, 2020 on the 4000 block of 1st Street, SE.  

In their closing argument, the prosecution summarized the evidence presented in the case and told the jury that the crime was a “traumatic and indiscriminate act of violence,” during which Cary allegedly shot the victim while in her car and drove to the hospital trying to remain conscious.

The prosecution claimed that although Cary was the one who shot five rounds, Stewart is guilty of aiding and abetting the crime due to driving him to and from the scene. 

According to the prosecution, there was a fight between Stewart and the victim earlier that day, prompted by a threat made by Stewart in which she stated that her boyfriend would kill the victim’s boyfriend. The prosecution claimed that the “beef” between the two escalated throughout the day. 

Stewart’s attorney, Jesse Winograd, stated that the defendant yelled “move, he’s about to shoot you,” seconds before the gun went off, and argued that this statement was a warning to the victim rather than a threat. Winograd also argued there is no evidence that Stewart knew the shooting would take place until the last second. 

According to Winograd, an eyewitness present in the passenger seat of the victim’s car testified that “without that warning, I’d be dead.” 

Winograd told the the warning is sufficient evidence to prove that Stewart did not intend injury or death for the victim, and she should be found not guilty on all counts.  

Alvin Thomas, Cary’s defense attorney, told the jury that the “devil is in the details,” and this case is one of misidentification. Thomas stated that at the first identification procedure conducted, the victim identified a picture of someone who was not Cary, but the police did not confirm the procedure because the victim did not directly state that he was the shooter. 

At the second identification procedure conducted five months after the shooting, the victim identified Cary as the shooter with no hesitation, stating “I see that face every day,” according to Thomas. 

Thomas argued that the identification evidence does not add up, and the jury should “not convict Mr. Cary because [they] feel bad someone got shot.”

In their rebuttal, the prosecution argued that Winograd is framing Stewart as a “guardian angel,” but there is direct evidence that points to Stewart’s role in causing the incident. 

The prosecution told the jury that there was nothing tainted about the identification procedures conducted, and that the victim directly identified Cary as “the man who put her through hell.”

Parties are slated to reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.