Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Consider making a donation to help us continue our mission.
By
Mia Kimm
- February 20, 2025
Daily Stories
|
Non-Fatal Shooting
|
Suspects
|
Parties presented closing arguments in a shooting case before DC Superior Court Judge Judith Pipe on Feb. 18.
Dayquan Henderson, 22, is charged with four counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and endangerment with a firearm, for his alleged involvement in a shooting on the 300 block of Anacostia Road, SE on May 11, 2024. No one was injured.
According to court documents, and witness testimony, the shooting stemmed from a verbal disagreement between the victims and Henderson’s sister. Prosecutors claimed the victims were spat upon by Henderson’s sister, and when they maced the sister, Henderson allegedly shot at them.
During closing arguments, Henderson’s attorney, Daniel Kovler, argued that this case was one of self-defense and defense of others and alleged that Henderson and his family were under attack.
The defense added that the prosecution was asking the jury to ignore logic and physics, citing the lack of physical evidence and the dubious reliability of the prosecution’s eyewitnesses.
Kovler argued that the absence of bullets and bullet holes at the scene of the crime was a reason to doubt that the gun was pointed at the complainants. He said that the height of the gun when it was used in relation to Henderson’s height would result in an unnatural and unlikely shooting position.
“The [prosecution] is asking you to believe the physically impossible based on unreliable eyewitness testimony,” Kovler said.
The prosecution argued that Henderson was attempting to injure and was not acting in self-defense.
They said that there is eyewitness testimony supporting the argument that the gun was pointed directly at the complainants rather than elsewhere. According to the prosecution, the eyewitnesses identified the type and color of the gun.
“The law does not reward someone for bad aim,” the prosecution said.
Even if Henderson was acting in self-defense, the prosecution argued that the use of deadly force was unnecessary in this context.
They said that the danger of mace is not proportionate to the danger of a firearm and that Henderson used greater force to act against the victims.
“He determined what is just, and our law has no room for that,” the prosecutor said.
Parties are slated to reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.