dissenting:
A trial is perforce a contest. The rules under which trials are conducted are designed to produce light rather than heat. However, heat often results.1 Our system looks primarily to the trial judge to minimize the heat and to counteract it when it risks interfering with the light.2 Counsel, of course, have a duty in this regard as well. This case involves an evaluation of how the participants in one trial performed their respective duties and the impact of those performances on the constitutional right of the defendants to a fair trial.
Perfection seldom, if ever, will be found in things wrought by humans. Thus, what the Constitution guarantees to litigants is a fair trial, not a perfect one.3 I cannot, however, overlook the numerous and serious instances of prosecutorial misconduct in this case as an unfortunate but acceptable product of an imperfect legal system. Where I part company from the majority, is with their holding that Curtis Irick and Larry and Jerry Daniels had the fair trial to which they are constitutionally entitled. I strongly assert that they did not. In my view, the misconduct was met by inadequate — and sometimes inappropriate — responses and correctives by the trial court, and thereby deprived Irick and Jerry Daniels of a fair trial. I would reverse Larry Daniels’ conviction on evidentiary sufficiency-
I. Prosecutorial Misconduct
In this trial, the United States was represented by Wallace Kleindienst, an Assist*41ant United States Attorney; Jerry Daniels was represented by Samuel Delgado, of the Public Defender Service.4 The conduct of counsel at issue in this case primarily is that of these two lawyers.
The notion that the prosecutor merely responded to offensive tactics by the defense counsel manifests itself in several aspects of the majority opinion. Most notably, the majority asserts that the prosecutor’s remarks were provoked, and thus permissible, as a “fair response” to previous actions of defense counsel. See Young, supra, 470 U.S. at 11-14, 105 S.Ct. at 1044-46 (discussing doctrine of “invited response”). This notion then colored another aspect of this trial — for the majority, as well as the trial court, misapplied the doctrine of “opening the door” as part of its thesis that the prosecution was simply reacting to the defense and allowed defendant Irick to be repeatedly referred to as “Dirty Harry.” See infra, at 44-46. Finally, the majority claims to analyze the effect of the prosecutorial misconduct in the context of the entire trial. Having stated the correct analytical approach, the majority fails to apply it to this case. Rather, they analyze each allegation of prosecutorial misconduct without an adequate evaluation of the “cumulative effect” of all of the misconduct, (much of which the majority concedes occurred), to determine whether substantial prejudice occurred, thus depriving defendants of a fair trial. See, e.g., Mathis v. United States, 513 A.2d 1344, 1349 (D.C.1986); Powell v. United States, 455 A.2d 405, 411 (D.C.1982). I discuss the doctrine of invited response and the doctrine of opening the door in more detail since, in my view, they were so grossly misapplied by the majority.
No trial is likely to be totally uneventful; this one surely was not. The events during trial which are at issue here began during the cross-examination by Delgado of a principal government witness, Cassandra Dorsey. At the time of her testimony, Dorsey was confined at the D.C. Jail awaiting a hearing in a probation revocation proceeding. She had previously testified for the government in two murder cases. When asked by Delgado whether Kleindienst had threatened her with respect to her testimony in this case, she responded, “No.” Upon objection by the government, and after a short bench conference, the trial judge excused the jury.
The trial judge then inquired of Delgado as to his good faith basis for his question, characterizing it as one “which I consider to be at least in absence of a good faith basis, one of the most outrageous quesi-tons I’ve ever heard asked of a witness in open court in front of a jury.” (Tr. IV 1165). Later, the court explained: “The only reason I’m so exercised about it Mr. Delgado is because you’ve accused an officer of this court, an Assistant United States Attorney, and in my experience with him one of the most highly ethical Assistant United States Attorneys I’ve ever run into, of threatening a witness, which I know in my heart he did not do.” (Tr. IV 1167). Still later, the trial court said: “And what you’ve put in front of this jury as if it were true is that Mr. Kleindienst has been threatening witnesses. And that’s not true, no matter what Ms. Dorsey would say about it.” (Tr. IV 1170).
Having thought about the matter during an overnight recess, the trial judge amplified his views. He stated:
I lost my temper a bit and excused the jury and because I did not think that was a — the kind of question, regardless of whatever good faith basis Mr. Delgado may have had for it, that should have been asked in front of this jury without a strong basis to believe that it was in fact true, and without having first cleared it with the Court.
I have thought about it overnight and my position remains the same, although I guess I can see if I were in Mr. — in defense counsel’s role why I would take a different point of view about that. Obviously the defense has a right to cross-*42examine the witness based on bias or motive to testify and assuming a good faith basis to believe that the event inquired about occurred, there really is no doctrine of law that I’m aware of except for notions of civility and gentility that would require the defense to first ask the Court before inquiring in that area. I would have hoped that any lawyer practicing in my court would have done so, but I am not at all sure that there is an absolute requirement in the law that it be done.
In any case the way it was left was that I would at least upon request voir dire the witness out of the presence of the jury this morning to determine what her answers to that series of questions would be and then make a ruling out of the presence of the jury whether or not that line of examination could be pursued. I’m still willing to do that, but it occurred to me during the overnight recess that for tactical reasons Mr. Klein-dienst may prefer that I do not do that, allow the line of examination.
Tr. IV 1197-98 (emphasis added).
The court further opined: “I think the law is, as [Delgado] stated it last night, that even if he can’t complete the impeachment if he has a good faith basis for undertaking it, he has a right to do so.” 5 (Tr. IV 1201).
After further inquiry, the court held that Delgado did in fact have a good faith basis for his questions to Dorsey, and thus, they were proper.6
The Supreme Court has recently discussed the so-called “invited response” or “invited reply” issue in Young, supra, 470 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038. In Young, the defense counsel in closing argument accused government counsel of, among other things, unethical conduct, of making statements designed “to poison your minds unfairly” and of prosecuting the defendant while knowing he was not guilty. Id. at 4-5, 105 S.Ct. at 1040-41. The prosecutor never objected. The prosecutor responded in kind in his rebuttal argument. The defendant never objected or requested curative instructions. The Supreme Court pointed out that the issue presented, given the absence of objections, was one of plain error. In language poignantly relevant to the issues in this case, the Court said: “The kind of advocacy shown by this record has no place in the administration of justice and should neither be permitted nor rewarded; a trial judge should deal promptly with any breach by either counsel.” Id. at 9, 105 S.Ct. at 1043. The Court made clear that the proper course for the trial judge is to prevent or correct improper conduct by either side in a trial:
We emphasize that the trial judge has the responsibility to maintain decorum in keeping with the nature of the proceeding; “the judge is not a mere moderator, but is the governor of the trial for the purpose of assuring its proper conduct.” Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 469 [53 S.Ct. 698, 699, 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1933). The judge “must meet situations as they arise and [be able] to cope with ... the contingencies inherent in the adversary process.” Geders v. United States, [425 U.S. 80, 86, 96 S.Ct. 1330, 1334, 47 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976) ]. Of course, *43“hard blows” cannot be avoided in criminal trials; both the prosecutor and defense counsel must be kept within appropriate bounds. See Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 862 [95 S.Ct. 2550, 2555, 45 L.Ed.2d 593] (1975).
Id. 470 U.S. at 10-11, 105 S.Ct. at 1043-44.
It is in retrospect, upon appellate review, that the evaluation of invited response becomes relevant, for it is only when the prosecutor’s conduct has deprived the defendant of a fair trial that reversal of a conviction is appropriate. “In this context, defense counsel’s conduct, as well as the nature of the prosecutor’s response, is relevant.” Id. at 12, 105 S.Ct. at 1044 (emphasis added) (citing United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 242, 60 S.Ct. 811, 853, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940); Crumpton v. United States, 138 U.S. 361, 364, 11 S.Ct. 355, 356, 34 L.Ed. 958 (1891)). Indeed, as the Court in Young stated:
In retrospect, perhaps the idea of “invited response” has evolved in a way not contemplated. Lawn [v. United States, 355 U.S. 339, 78 S.Ct. 311, 2 L.Ed.2d 321 (1958) ] and the earlier cases cited above should not be read as suggesting judicial approval or — encouragement—of response-in-kind that inevitably exacerbates the tensions inherent in the adversary process. As Lawn itself indicates, the issue is not the prosecutor’s license to make otherwise improper arguments, but whether the prosecutor’s “invited response,” taken in context, unfairly prejudiced the defendant.
Supra, 470 U.S. at 12, 105 S.Ct. at 1044-45. The Court further stated that:
Courts have not intended by any means to encourage the practice of zealous counsel’s going “out of bounds” in the manner of defense counsel here, or to encourage prosecutors to respond to the “invitation.” Reviewing courts ought not to be put in the position of weighing which of two inappropriate arguments was the lesser. “Invited responses” can be effectively discouraged by prompt action from the bench in the form of corrective instructions to the jury and, when necessary, an admonition to the errant advocate.
Id. at 13, 105 S.Ct. at 1045.
Of particular relevance here is the Court’s observation that the preferable response when one counsel has engaged in objectionable conduct is for the trial court to deal promptly with that objectionable conduct and, thus, obviate the need for adversarial response. After holding that the prosecutor’s “responsiveness” argument in Young was error, the Court noted that the prosecutor’s first error was in failing to ask the trial court to deal with defense counsel’s improper conduct. Id.
It is within this analytical framework that I consider the prosecutorial misconduct which took place in this case. “Inquiry designed to elicit possible bias is a major purpose of cross-examination” and, as long as counsel has a good faith basis, such questions are proper. See Springer v. United States, 388 A.2d 846, 855 (D.C.1978); see also Sherer v. United States, 470 A.2d 732, 736 (D.C.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 931, 105 S.Ct. 325, 83 L.Ed.2d 262 (1984). The trial judge in this case found no lack of a good faith basis on the part of defense counsel. Indeed, the trial judge recognized correctly that: “[Ajssuming a good faith basis to believe that the event inquired about occurred, there really is no doctrine of law that I’m aware of except for notions of civility and gentility that would require the defense to first ask the court before inquiring in that area.” (Tr. IV 1198). As the trial judge correctly stated the law thereafter, “the law is ... that even if [counsel] can’t complete the impeachment if he has a good faith basis for undertaking it, he has a right to do so.” (Tr. IV 1201).
Defense counsel articulated the grounds to support his good faith basis for the record. At the time of cross-examination, Cassandra Dorsey, who was known to be a drug addict and to have testified for the government in two prior murder cases, was incarcerated for violating the terms of her probation. At the time of the incident at issue in this case, she lived with her boyfriend Ronnie Daniels, brother to Larry *44and Jerry Daniels. On direct examination, she testified that on the evening of the incident, she answered the front door to find Jerry Daniels and “Dirty Harry” [Ir-ick] standing there. She testified further, on cross-examination, that she observed Tommy Daniels (another Daniel brother living in the house) bury the gun (given to him by Jerry) behind the garage. Defense counsel, however, had been told by a witness — whose identity counsel refused to divulge, although from the record, it apparently was his client — that Dorsey told him she never saw anyone bury a gun and merely opened the door for the two men. As a result, Dorsey told this person that the prosecutor harassed her repeatedly by calling her out of her cell at the D.C. jail and threatened her with imprisonment for five years. Delgado noted that when relating these events to the witness Dorsey had not been clear as to whether the five years would be for her role as an accessory after the fact, perjury or both. In any event, after allegedly threatening her the week prior to testifying, the prosecutor allegedly gave her the weekend “to think” about her testimony. Dorsey then called the witness and communicated in detail her predicament. Finally, Delgado suggested that this person also told him that the prosecutor may have indicated that Dorsey’s cooperation might result in her release the day following her hearing on the probation violations, which hearing was scheduled to occur three days after the date she was to testify in this case.
To the extent that harm in the form of parading innuendo before the jury is likely to occur from asking the question despite a negative response from the witness, the proper course is to give a prompt jury instruction. Twice in this case the trial judge offered to give such an instruction. (Tr. IV 1179, 1201). With respect to his second offer to do so the trial judge stated:
And what the Government is entitled to is an instruction that says in effect there’s absolutely no evidence that the witness — if this turns out to be the fact —there’s no evidence that the witness was threatened or intimidated in anyway or that she said she had been. The questions of counsel are not evidence, only what the witness says under oath. And her testimony under oath is what it is. I’d certainly be willing to give such an instruction ...
(Tr. 1201-02). The prosecutor immediately declined to accept the trial court’s offer, reasoning that:
We all know how much stock jurors put in these instructions. It varies in degree, Your Honor. My only concern — I can see where this trial is going. I’m on trial myself. I don’t appreciate it.
(Tr. IV 1202). Having rejected the court’s offer of a curative instruction, which apparently was done for “tactical reasons,” and preferring to use closing argument as a “corrective,” the prosecutor thereafter made no instructional request about this matter.
It was at this juncture that the trial judge transgressed the teachings of Young, supra, 470 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038. The proper course for the trial judge, as Young indicates, was to give the instruction he proposed to give forthwith; to give it anew in his final instructions to the jury, and to impose proper limitations on closing argument by all counsel. While such limits properly would have permitted the prosecutor to argue the lack of evidence to contradict Dorsey’s denial that she was threatened, such proper limits would have prohibited the type of argument in fact made by Kleindienst, which I discuss in more detail in Section A(l), infra. The trial court committed error in failing to do so. Simply put, there having been no wrongful conduct by Delgado, the trial court erred by permitting Kleindienst to tell the jury that there was.7
*45The majority likewise sanctions what I find to be other improper conduct by the prosecutor and error by the trial judge by holding that the trial court correctly ruled that Irick had “opened the door” to certain actions by the prosecutor. I refer to the trial court’s permitting the government to repeatedly introduce evidence that Irick’s nickname was “Dirty Harry,” after having originally forbidden the use of that nickname.
Prior to testifying before the jury, it came out that Dorsey knew Irick by the nickname Dirty Harry and had so identified him to the police. The trial court instructed Dorsey and the government not to use the nickname Dirty Harry, given its association with the movie of that name in which Clint Eastwood helped make the .44 magnum infamous. In spite of that admonition, Dorsey used the nickname Dirty Harry several times to describe Irick in her direct examination before the jury. On the first occasion, the trial court sustained Irick’s objection but declined to permit counsel to approach the bench. After Dorsey’s second such reference, she was admonished both by the court and government counsel for doing so. She did so yet again, whereupon the trial court denied defense counsel’s motion for mistrial. On cross-examination, Irick asked Dorsey if she knew the person identified as Irick by the nickname “Reds”; she stated that she did not.
On redirect, Mr. Kleindienst used Dorsey’s grand jury testimony to interrogate her further. He read to her questions asked of her and answers she gave to those questions before the grand jury, in which reference is made to “Dirty Harry” eight times. It is this use of the term Dirty Harry on redirect examination, the use of which had been previously interdicted by the trial judge, which the trial judge and my colleagues say was properly admitted since Irick “opened the door.”
The shibboleth “opened the door” is properly known as the doctrine of curative admissibility. See United States v. Winston, 145 U.S.App.D.C. 67, 71, 447 F.2d 1236, 1240 (1971); 1 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 15 (Tillers rev. 1983). McCormick on Evidence titles this evidentiary issue “Fighting Fire with Fire: Inadmissable Evidence as Opening the Door.” § 57 (3d ed. 1984). The majority’s discussion of the term “opened the door” merely adds to the obfuscation created by that term at the expense of the legitimate rationale for the doctrine of curative admissability.
An appropriate starting place of an analysis of curative admissibility is Lampkins v. United States, 515 A.2d 428 (D.C.1986). There we said “the sine qua non of curative admissibility [is] ‘the introduction of incompetent or irrelevant evidence by a party ... ’” Lampkins, supra, 515 A.2d at 431 (quoting (Duane) Dyson v. United States, 450 A.2d 432, 442 (D.C.1982)). It is only where this first condition is met that any issue of curative admissibility arises at all.
Where the action of a party in introducing incompetent or irrelevant evidence satisfies this first condition, then the trial court must confront at least two other considerations. As we said in (Duane) Dyson, supra, if the door is in fact opened, it is opened “only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence.” 450 A.2d at 442 (quoting Winston, supra, 145 U.S.App.D.C. at 71-72, 447 F.2d at 1240-41; accord Lampkins v. United States, supra; Middleton v. United States, 401 A.2d 109, 127 (D.C.1979); Crawford v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 237, 198 F.2d 976, 979 (1952). The decision by the trial court to admit the curative testimony is a discretionary one; in the exercise of that discretion, the trial court must weigh undue prejudice against probativeness. See Lampkins, supra, 515 A.2d at 432; Middleton, supra, 401 A.2d at 127-28; Curry v. United States, 322 A.2d 268, 270 (D.C.1974); 1 J. Wigmore, supra, § 15. See generally Johnson, supra, 398 A.2d 354. As Judge Harold Leventhal, speaking for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has said:
*46The trial judge [Judge William B. Bryant] put it expressively [citation omitted]:
This business about ‘opening the door’ is a much overused issue and it carries with it an oversimplification. Opening the door is one thing. But what comes through the door is another. Everything cannot come through the door. This witness’ testimony was certainly not in rebuttal to anything that the defendant testified to.
We agree with the reasoning of the trial judge. As noted in United States v. McLain, 142 U.S.App.D.C. 213, 216, 440 F.2d 241, 244 (1971): “The doctrine of curative admissibility is one dangerously prone to overuse.” Permission to explore in rebuttal with testimony not admissible on direct, on the ground that the other party has opened the doors, rests “upon the necessity of removing prejudice in the interest of fairness.” Crawford v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 237, 198 F.2d 976, 979 (1952).
The doctrine is to prevent prejudice and is not to be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice. Introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence under shield of this doctrine is permitted “only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence.” California Ins. Co. v. Allen, 235 F.2d 178, 180 (5th Cir.1956).
Winston, supra, 145 U.S.App.D.C. at 71, 447 F.2d at 1240.
Wigmore makes the point as follows: There is a general requirement that evidence submitted under the aegis of curative admissibility relate to the matter shown by the inadmissible evidence submitted by the other party. Generally speaking, this is a sensible requirement since the aim of curative admissibility is to give the party harmed by the introduction of inadmissible evidence an opportunity to counter the inferences that may be drawn from that inadmissible evidence; he should not be given a license to create prejudice of a different sort, unrelated to the prejudice caused him, merely so that he has a better chance of winning. Curative admissibility, in short, is designed to improve the accuracy of factfinding and is not designed simply to permit a party to avoid the harm done by giving him an opportunity to improve his chances of winning by increasing the possibility of erroneous factual adjudication with respect to some other matter.
1 J. Wigmore, supra, § 15, at 749-50 (footnote omitted).
Weinstein forcefully states the same point:
This concept of “opening the door” or “invited error” has been widely used to justify ignoring rules of evidence. Often it results in extremely prejudicial and time consuming inquiries. Attorneys may as a tactical matter, fail to object to a line in order to have the door opened to their own equally objectionable inquiries. The court ought to intercede to prevent this kind of gamemanship when it can be foreseen. Control of the trial should not be dissipated on the theory that two wrongs neutralize each other unless the court is convinced that there is no other practicable way to protect the parties while avoiding the dreadful waste of a mistrial.
Weinstein’s Evidence § 103[02], at 16 (1988).
Here, the trial judge had specifically instructed Dorsey and counsel not to refer to Irick by the nickname “Dirty Harry.” The trial judge did so stating that “ ‘Dirty Harry,’ in the minds [sic] of the jury, is associated with a .44 magnum.” In spite of this admonition, Dorsey referred to Irick on direct examination as “Dirty Harry” three times in the presence of the jury.8 The trial court sustained Irick’s objections and admonished the witness. On cross-examination, Dorsey was asked whether she *47knew the person she identified as Irick by the nickname “Reds.” Dorsey stated she did not; she said the only nickname she knew him by was “Dirty Harry.” It was that the trial judge and my Brethren say opened the door to permit the prosecutor properly to use the nickname “Dirty Harry” on redirect examination, in Gatling gun fashion, on no less than eight occasions. I can think of few more egregious examples of the curative admissibility doctrine being misused to intellect prejudice against an opposing party when the sine qua non simply does not exist in the first place, “merely so that [a party] has a better chance of winning.” 1 J. Wigmore, supra, § 15, at 750. Assuming that the trial court did in fact exercise discretion on this issue, a' question not free from doubt, the exercise constituted an abuse thereof.
A. Specific Instances of Prosecutorial Misconduct
Viewed in context, it is clear to me that taken together, as well as alone, several instances of prosecutorial misconduct occurred, which prejudiced the outcome of this trial. They include the following: 1) attacks on the integrity of defense counsel, including statements by the prosecutor that he was slandered by defense counsel, references to defense counsel as “manipulators of the truth” and assertions that defense counsel “sandbagged” a witness; 2) the prosecutor’s repeated expressions of personal opinion regarding the character of the witnesses, including the bolstering of government witnesses and the sarcastic dubbing of defendant Irick as a “truthtel-ler”; 3) the prosecutor’s prejudicial characterization of the case as one occurring in an organized and illicit drug world, through repeated references to Irick as “Dirty Harry,” and “the enforcer,” and his demonstration with the gun, dubbed “the cannon,” which he cocked and “dry fired” in front of the jury several times, and 4) the prosecutor’s argument of facts not in evidence. I consider each in turn:
1. Attacks on the integrity of defense counsel
It was improper for the government to argue on rebuttal that defense counsel “slandered” the government. Although a cold record often belies the intensity of emotion generated at a trial, the words of this prosecutor exemplified the emotional pitch reached in this case:
All they give me is a beat-up old briefcase and a couple of legal pads. It’s not an impressive force that is coming in to persecute [sic] these three men. But I guess that’s the thankless job of being a prosecutor is sometimes you have to stand the abuse of being slandered, accused of misconduct because what else are they gonna do. We got the drugs. We got the guns. We got a bullet that almost killed an officer. We got the money. So what else can they do. Let’s say that Mr. Kliendienst is manipulating the truth.
Well this is a case about character. And I value my character.
(Tr. Ill 749). Later in rebuttal, the prosecutor addressed the substance of the charges and accused defense counsel of “manupulat[ing] the truth:”
What else do we know about manipulators of truth in this courtroom. They slandered the government back and forth like a ping pong ball in the last five weeks.
(Tr. Ill 751). Finally, the prosecutor accused defense counsel of “sandbagging” Officer Lewis, stating: “why didn’t they [defense counsel] ask them, did you say this, Jimmy Lewis. No. They sandbagged him. Sandbagged him.” (Tr. Ill 760). The defendant’s subsequent objections and motion for mistrial were denied.
Attacks that pale in comparison with the prosecutor’s remarks in this case have been found improper by this court. Elsewhere we have stated, “it is improper ... for the prosecutor to impute thoughts and poor judgment to defense counsel.” Hammill v. United States, 498 A.2d 551, 558 (D.C.1985). In Mathis v. United States, this court reversed a conviction due, in part, to the comment that defense counsel at trial, “was leading the pack ... [just like] his client led the pack that night.” 513 A.2d at 1347. The court determined that the cumu*48lative effect of this denigration of trial counsel along the prosecutor’s dubbing appellant with the name “the Godfather,” as well as vouching for the credibility of government witnesses, resulted in substantial prejudice. Id.; see also Sherer, supra, 470 A.2d at 742.
The comments that defense counsel were “manipulators of the truth” and that they “slandered the government” arose from the defense’s questioning of Dorsey about potential grounds for bias and cannot be interpreted as a fair response, especially since, as the trial judge ultimately held, the law permits such cross-examination.9 The majority’s response to these comments misses the mark. Content to open the floodgates of the fair response doctrine, without any analysis of the effect of such comments on the jury’s perception of defense counsel and, thus, of prejudice to the defendant, the majority concludes that the prosecutor “was, if anything, more sinned against than sinning.” Curiously, the majority never says what constituted the original “sin.” Prosecutors cannot, however, be permitted to convict defendants through an attack on their advocates. The remarks were improper, and the trial court erred when it failed at least to sustain defense objections and to strike the remarks with a curative instruction, or, in the alternative, perhaps to grant the motions for mistrial.
2. Expressions of personal opinion by the prosecutor
The prosecutor gave the jury his personal evaluation of the character of many of the important witnesses at trial. He vouched for Cassandra Dorsey's character,10 whose history of drug addiction and pending sentencing called her truthfulness into question, as well as the truthfulness of Byron Wallace and Jimmy Lewis, whose statements were inconsistent, and Dorsey.11 The prosecutor opined most profusely, however, upon the character of Curtis Irick, statements which potentially were prejudicial to Irick, as well as Jerry Daniels, for in order to secure convictions against them for the assault on a police officer, the prosecutor had to show that Irick was not present by happenstance and did not shoot Officer Lewis under the mistaken belief that Lewis and Wallace were hold up men. No less than six times,12 the prosecutor sarcastically referred to Irick as the “truth teller”; in closing, he asked *49without elaboration on the conflicting evidence, why Irick hadn’t “told the truth” about his work history,13 and baldly asserted several times that Irick was lying.14
The majority correctly states that the “key inquiry is whether the attorney is commenting on the evidence, which he [or she] may do, or expressing a personal opinion, which is taboo.” Supra, at 35-36. Unlike the cases cited by the majority, however, the prosecutor in this case not only gave his explicit opinion as to the character of all of the major witnesses, but also outlined precisely who did and who did not tell the truth. Such comments cross the line between drawing permissible inferences from the evidence and expressing personal opinions. See Logan v. United States, 489 A.2d 485, 490 (D.C.1985); Arnold v. United States, 467 A.2d 136, 138 (D.C.1983).
This court has repeatedly condemned expressions of personal opinion about a witness’ credibility:
It is for the jury to decide whether a witness is truthful and an attorney may not inject personal evaluations and opinions as to a witness’ veracity.
Jones v. United States, 512 A.2d 253, 257 (D.C.1986) (quoting (Phillip) Dyson v. United States, 418 A.2d 127, 130 (D.C.1980)); accord Chapman v. United States, 493 A.2d 1026, 1030 (D.C.1985); McCowan v. United States, 458 A.2d 1191, 1198 (D.C.1983); Powell, supra, 455 A.2d at 408. Allowing the expression of personal opinions about the credibility of a witness places before the jury questions of counsel’s credibility and interferes with the jury’s determination of the credibility of witnesses:
To permit counsel to express his personal belief in the testimony ... would afford him a privilege not even accorded to witnesses under oath and subject to cross examination. Worse, it creates the false issue of reliability and credibility of counsel. This is peculiarly unfortunate if one of them has the advantage of official backing.
(Duane) Dyson, supra, 450 A.2d at 440 (quoting Harris v. United States, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 105, 107, 402 F.2d 656, 658 (1968)); see also Young, supra, 470 U.S. at 18-19, 105 S.Ct. at 1047-48; Mathis, supra, 513 A.2d at 1348. Expressions of personal opinion are particularly damaging when, as here, the credibility of a witness is crucial to the verdict. Powell, supra, 455 A.2d at 408; (Phillip) Dyson, supra, 418 A.2d at 130.
Similarly, counsel may not assert that a witness has lied on the witness stand. Jones, supra, 512 A.2d at 257 (citing cases); (Phillip) Dyson, supra, 418 A.2d at 130. In other cases comments by a prosecutor that a defense witnesses’ testimony was “concocted,” or unbelievable, Powell, supra, 455 A.2d at 408 “false” or “outright perjury” (George) Miller v. United States, 444 A.2d 13, 14 (D.C.1982) have constituted ground for reversal. See also McCowan, supra, 458 A.2d at 1198 (improper for prosecutor to imply untruthfulness by defendant in closing argument).
The majority notes that “[reasonable people may differ about the appropriateness of the prosecutor’s apparent sarcasm in referring to Irick as a “truthteller.” Supra, at 36. I disagree. Even the trial court was fully aware of the potential im*50propriety of repeatedly referring to Irick as a “truthteller”:
the Court of Appeals may some day say that sarcastically referring to a witness as a truthteller is the same kind of arguably improper argument as calling a witness a liar, which I never thought was improper until the Court of Appeals said so. I don’t think the Court of Appeals has said that yet and I don’t think that the argument was in any way improper.
The majority, concerned about the “life and zest” needed to “capture and retain the jury’s attention,” concludes that “the Constitution does not require prosecutor’s to be boring.” Supra, at 34. Perhaps not, but my concern rests not with permissible theatrics, but rather with permissible comments by the prosecutor — I reiterate the words of this court: “expressions of personal opinion are improper and offend the dignity of the court. They should not be tolerated.” McCowan, supra, 458 A.2d at 1198.
3. Improper characterization of the facts
Throughout this case, the prosecutor endeavored to portray the defendants as participants in an illegal drug organization. Such a trial tactic was permissible to the extent that the evidence and testimony supported this inference. The impropriety arose, however, with the highly prejudicial and inflammatory language that the prosecutor invoked to describe Curtis Irick. In his opening and closing statements, the prosecutor labelled Curtis Irick as “the enforcer.” The prejudicial impact of the term was heightened when the government’s expert witness used that term to describe the role of an “enforcer” in an illegal drug ring. Defense counsel objected to this language and moved for a mistrial, but the motion was denied and no curative instruction was given.
On direct examination, Dorsey referred to Irick by his nickname, “Dirty Harry.” The trial judge warned the prosecutor and the witness to refrain from the use of that term. Despite the trial court’s ruling, both the witness and the prosecutor continued to use the term repeatedly thereafter. Specifically, on redirect examination of Dorsey, the prosecutor referred to Irick as “Dirty Harry” eight times. At this point, the trial judge found that counsel for Irick had “opened the door” when defense counsel had asked Dorsey whether she knew the person she identified as Irick by the nickname “Reds.” The upshot of this ruling was to hold it was proper for the prosecutor to read a portion of Dorsey’s grand jury testimony that referred to Irick as “Dirty Harry” eight times. Finally, during cross examination of Irick, the prosecutor pick up the unloaded gun, which he later described as a “cannon,” waved it in the air and “dry fired” it four or five times before the jury. One juror appeared to have a visible reaction to this demonstration. Tr. Ill 302-03. The defense objected immediately to the prosecutor’s conduct, but the motion for mistrial was denied.
Other courts have found improper language and conduct that was much less egregious in quantity, if not quality, than that which was present in this case. See, e.g., Evans v. United States, 392 A.2d 1015, 1026 (D.C.1978) (reference to defense witnesses as a gang of felons”); Maxwell v. United States, 297 A.2d 771, 773 (D.C.1972) (reference to defendant as “burglar, thief and robber” was inappropriate), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 921, 93 S.Ct. 2740, 37 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); United States v. Shelton, 202 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 56-57, 628 F.2d 54, 56-57 (1980) (improper for a prosecutor to paint a picture “by innuendo” that the defendants were “seedy and sinister characters” through a carefully crafted presentation of the facts which showed that the defendant and one of his principle witnesses were members of the drug underworld involved in all sorts of skulduggery.”); United States v. Jenkins, 140 U.S.App. 392, 397, 436 F.2d 140, 145 (1970) (defendant called a “teenage hoodlum”).
In this case, the jury heard repeated references to the terms “Dirty Harry” and “the enforcer,” along with the use of the term “cannon,” coupled with inflammatory theatrics with the very same “cannon” in the midst of cross-examination of the al*51leged “enforcer.” The inquiry is not, as the majority suggests, whether the fact that “Irick was an ‘enforcer’ could reasonably be inferred from the evidence.” Rather, the appropriate inquiry is the prejudicial effect this term would have on the jury. The same is true concerning the “Dirty Harry” reference. As even the trial judge recognized, “ ‘Dirty Harry,’ in the minds of the jury, is associated with a .44 magni-um.”
These tactics were highly prejudicial and should not be tolerated. I find the waving and the pulling of the trigger in front of the jury to be especially prejudicial. If, as the prosecutor argued, the jury truly needed to see the operation of the firearm in order to evaluate Irick’s testimony (as to whether he panicked or not), then surely the firearms expert who the prosecutor had already called was much better qualified to conduct this sort of demonstration than the prosecutor.
4- Arguing facts not in evidence
A critical issue in this trial was whether Curtis Irick knew that Byron Wallace and Jimmy Lewis were police officers. Twice, the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence that went to this critical issue. First, in closing, the government adopted the persona of Jerry Daniels and implied that Jerry Daniels knew that Wallace and Lewis were police officers:
[Jerry Daniels is] letting him [Curtis Irick] know now’s the time Curtis, get ’em off me. I don’t want to go to jail. I don’t want to get locked up. I don’t want to go to jail for selling dope. They ain’t got their guns out then, I’m not going to be caught in the cross fire. You get them off me.
(Tr. Ill 570 (emphasis added)). In actuality, Officer Wallace testified that Jerry Daniels stated:
I recall the statements [by Jerry Daniels] were “Get them, Boo.” Boo, Butch, something like that. “Don’t let them get me. Shoot them. Don’t let them take me.” He kept saying it over and over.
Tr. IV, 1539.
Aside from the potential impropriety of adopting the first person, see Hawthorne v. United States, 476 A.2d 164, 170 (D.C.1984), this argument was improper since there was no evidence that Jerry Daniels implied that he knew Lewis and Wallace were police officers. See Jones, supra, 512 A.2d at 257.
Second, the prosecutor also argued in closing that Irick was “[r]unning with his business partner. Who knew as Detective Brown told you, that Curtis Irick was out there for one purpose and that’s to have a pistol to protect [Irick and Daniels].” Tr. III 574. Support for this comment was completely lacking in the record since the trial judge had specifically stricken such testimony by Detective Brown. See Lewis v. United States, 541 A.2d 145, 146-47 (D.C.1988) (plain error for prosecutor to argue facts not in evidence and misstate testimony).
B. Substantial Prejudice Analysis
Prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal “if the error rises to the level of substantial prejudice.” Hawthorne, supra, 476 A.2d at 170 (citing Dent v. United States, 404 A.2d 165, 172 (D.C.1979). The factors to consider when evaluating the degree of prejudice include: “the gravity of the misconduct, [its] direct relationship to the issue of guilt, the effect of specific corrective instructions by the trial court, if any, and the strength of the government’s case.” Hammill, 498 A.2d 551, 554 (D.C.1985); Powell, supra, 455 A.2d at 411. Where the defendant has preserved objections for appeal, “substantial prejudice” is found when a court determines “with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was substantially swayed by the error.” Id. (citation omitted). Where the defendant has not objected, the record is reviewed for plain error. Hammill, supra, 498 A.2d at 554 (citing Watts v. United States, 362 A.2d 706, 709 (D.C.1976) (en banc)).
Review of all of the misconduct in this case leaves no question in my mind that it “substantially swayed” the jury’s judgment. Contrary to the majority’s implications, most, although not all of the conduct complained of was objected to by defense *52counsel.15 Those comments not objected to would be subject to the stricter standard of plain error review.16 The misconduct in this case was egregious in nature and repeated in extent. Defense counsel was maligned. Irick, whose testimony was critical to the defense, was labelled a “truthteller,” “Dirty Harry,” and “the enforcer,” who supposededly carried a “cannon,” which the prosecutor waved, cocked and dry fired four or five times in front of the jury. The prosecutor argued that Jerry Daniels knew that Irick was there to protect him; a fact not in evidence. Furthermore, “the prosecutor’s conduct was not an isolated, momentary aberration occurring in the heat of trial,” Villacres v. United States, 357 A.2d 423, 428 (D.C.1976), it was oft repeated throughout this trial. Consequently, it is highly inappropriate to evaluate incidences in isolation, as does the majority. Rather, we must look to the “cumulative effect” of the prosecutorial misconduct in this case, which I believe unequivocally shows that such conduct resulted in substantial prejudice. See Mathis, supra, 513 A.2d at 1349; Powell, supra, 455 A.2d at 411. Since Jerry Daniels and Irick were deprived of a fair trial, the Constitution mandates that they be given a new one.
II. Sufficiency of the evidence — Larry Daniels’ appeal
Larry Daniels was convicted of aiding and abetting Jerry Daniels’ possession with intent to distribute cocaine.17 On appeal, Larry Daniels argues that insufficient evidence existed for conviction of aiding and abetting, because Larry Daniels had no contact with either Jerry Daniels or with narcotics, before, during or after the offense. I agree. Furthermore, even if Larry Daniels had produced cocaine or had a stash of cocaine, this would still constitute insufficient evidence to convict for aiding' and abetting the possession by Jerry Daniels.
The majority gives short shrift to the facts surrounding Larry Daniels’ actions, and necessarily so, since Daniels’ involvement in this case was limited, if he was involved at all. The record does indicate, however, that on the evening of January 9, 1982, Officers Lewis and Wallace entered a playground through a hole in the fence and observed five to eight people standing near a green door of a school next to the playground. Officer Wallace yelled, “Halves, halves, anybody got halves,” to which Larry Daniels who stood five feet away responded affirmatively. Wallace asked about the cost and Larry Daniels replied, $50.00. Give me the money.” Larry Daniels made no showing of the narcotics and Wallace did not believe that he actually possessed any cocaine. Wallace then looked past Larry Daniels and observed another man standing with two to three *53other people, approximately 25 to 30 feet away. Wallace then stated to Daniels, “well, shoot, man, I am going to the man who already has the dope. You might try to steal my money.” Both officers left Larry Daniels to approach the persons by the door. Officer Wallace admitted that, “If I gave him [Larry Daniels] the money, it’s possible he could have went over there and got it [referring to the people by the green door] or either he could have took my money and went somewhere else. So that’s why I didn’t arrest him.”
Officer Wallace specifically stated that he did not observe Larry Daniels have any contact with Jerry Daniels.18 After walking towards the group near the school, the officers did not have any further contact with Larry Daniels or see anyone else have contact with him. Later, Larry Daniels was observed by two other officers who were called to the scene. They observed him jumping over a fence by the schoolyard, putting on a jacket, and then “walking kind of fast.” When stopped, he did not attempt to evade the police.
The essential elements of aiding and abetting are that 1) an offense was committed by someone; 2) that the accused participated in its commission; and 3) that the accused did so with guilty knowledge. West v. United States, 499 A.2d 860, 865 (D.C.1985); see also Byrd v. United States, 364 A.2d 1215, 1219 (D.C.1976); Murchison v. United States, 486 A.2d 77, 81 (D.C.1984); In re R.A.B., 399 A.2d 81, 83 (D.C.1979); Blango v. United States, 335 A.2d 230, 235 (D.C.1975). Regarding the element of participation in the commission of the offense, this court has stated further that in order for a conviction of aiding and abetting to stand, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused in some way associated with or participated in the criminal undertaking and that through his or her actions intended to assure its success. See Wesley v. United States, 547 A.2d 1022, 1026 (D.C.1988) (quoting Settles v. United States, 522 A.2d 348, 357 (D.C.1987)); In re R.A.B., supra, 399 A.2d at 83 (citations omitted).
The record before us fails to show the necessary element of association and participation between Larry Daniels and Jerry Daniels to convict Larry Daniels of aiding and abetting. The only evidence of association presented on this record is Larry Daniels’ presence on the playground, the expert testimony relating to the role of the “runner” in a drug operation, and the legally repugnant concept of guilt by brotherly association.
Generally, “[m]ere presence at the scene of the crime, without more, is insufficient to prove involvement in the crime.” Settles, supra, 522 A.2d at 357; see Creek v. United States, 324 A.2d 688, 689 (D.C.1974). When, however, the defendant has participated in the crime through some affirmative act, or if by design encourages, facilitates or stimulates the commission of the crime, the defendant may be convicted of aiding and abetting. (Willie) Miller v. United States, 479 A.2d 862, 865 (D.C.1984); Bailey v. United States, 135 U.S. App.D.C. 95, 98-99, 416 F.2d 1110, 1113-14 (1969).
This ease presents no evidence that Larry Daniels participated in or had any contact whatsoever with Jerry Daniels, No evidence existed that Larry Daniels accompanied Jerry Daniels to the playground, that he talked to Jerry Daniels, or that they made eye contact or signalled each other in any way. The facts merely indicate that Larry Daniels stood alone in a *54schoolyard along with at least five to eight persons who were also present on the playground. When the undercover officers approached Larry Daniels, he responded to their request for cocaine by asking for money, but he did nothing else to indicate that he would actually supply the drugs, or indicate who the supplier would be. Officer Wallace did not give Larry Daniels money, nor did he believe that Daniels possessed drugs. The officers left Larry Daniels to apprehend Jerry Daniels,-who was standing 25-30 feet away, apparently engaged in a drug transaction with two to three others. Finally, Larry Daniels left the playground alone after the shootings, as did the other people in the schoolyard.
The government argues, based on the expert testimony of Detective Brown, that Larry Daniels’ actions in negotiating a purchase price was consistent with a “runner” —someone who negotiates the price for a purchaser, and obtains for the purchaser either the drug or someone who has the drug — in this case Jerry Daniels. Brown testified also, however, that if someone negotiates for drug purchase money, unless contact among the person can be observed it is impossible to tell whether the person is working with anyone or with whom the person is working:
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Detective Brown, in your experience, in these high crime neighborhoods, these high drug areas, there are — lots of people hang around; has that been your experience?
BROWN: Generally, yes.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: And unless you make certain observations of contact between one or the other, I mean you really can’t tell whether or not they are involved with another; is that right?
BROWN: That is correct.
(T. II. 37-38 (emphasis added). Here, Officer Wallace specifically stated that he observed no contact between Larry Daniels and Jerry Daniels. See supra, note 16. Rather, he merely observed five to eight people milling around a darkened playground near a school building from which Larry Daniels stood 25 to 30 feet away. Officer Brown also stated that often persons who act as Larry Daniels did, really have no intention of selling drugs. Rather, they falsely claim to have a stash of drugs in another location, take the money up front and then disappear with it. Thus, Larry Daniels may have been simply trying to rob Officer Wallace, a possibility that Wallace acknowledged. The alternative argument — assuming that Larry Daniels was going to fulfill the request for drugs — requires pure speculation since no contact of any sort was shown to have taken place between him and the others. Absence of evidence linking the accused to Jerry Daniels cannot be surmounted by hypotheses. Quarles v. United States, 308 A.2d 773, 775 (D.C.1973).
Further, I can find no support for the proposition that expert testimony describing the modus operandi of potential crime scenarios, without further evidence to prove that the defendant in fact engaged in the events testified about, would constitute sufficient proof to convict for aiding and abetting. To the contrary, in Quarles, supra, 308 A.2d at 775, this court reversed a conviction for aiding and abetting a pickpocket despite expert testimony that supported the events testified to at trial.
In Quarles, the appellant pushed between a husband and a wife when they were boarding a bus. Once aboard, appellant, who was standing near the couple, bent over and forcibly pushed the husband, while at the same moment an unknown gentleman pushed against the husband from the rear. The husband immediately felt for his wallet and noticed it was gone. In reversing the conviction, this court stated, “[t]here was no testimony of any communication between appellant and the purported thief at any time before or after the theft, nor were they ever seen together before or connected in any other way.” Id. The court concluded that:
while surmise and conjecture, particularly in light of the expert testimony as to the modus operandi of pickpockets working in pairs, may lead one to suspect that the two men may have been acting in concert, suspicion, even strong suspicion is no substitute for probative evidence of guilt.
Id. (footnote and citation omitted).
Thus, without evidence of any contact between Larry Daniels and Jerry Daniels, *55or any evidence to show that Larry Daniels was a runner consistent with the expert’s theory, we are left with nothing more than the fact that Larry Daniels and Jerry Daniels are brothers.
The majority warns: “guilt by association is a very dangerous principle ... fraught with peril” — words devoid of meaning if not applied. Our legal system has consistently eschewed the notion of guilt by association in the context of articulable suspicion for arrest where propinquity could not form the basis to presume concerted criminal conduct;19 not surprisingly, I have found no exception for association based on blood.20
III. Conclusion
I would reverse this case as to Larry Daniels, finding insufficient evidence of aiding and abetting. I would reverse and remand this case for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct that substantially prejudiced this trial for Jerry Daniels and Curtis Irick.
. "It is impossible to expect that a criminal trial shall be conducted without some showing of feeling; the stakes are high, and the participants are inevitably charged with emotion." United States v. Wexler, 79 F.2d 526, 529-30 (2d Cir.1935), cert. denied, 297 U.S. 703, 56 S.Ct. 384, 80 L.Ed. 991 (1936), quoted in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 10, n. 8, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1043 n. 8, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985).
. Young, supra, 470 U.S. at 10, 105 S.Ct. at 1043.
. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1436, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986).
. Larry Daniels was represented by Charles Stow, Esquire, Curtis Irick, by Roger Durban, Esquire.
. I have quoted the trial judge’s remarks extensively for I deem it fairer to do so than to characterize or summarize them. See Holy Bible, The New King James Edition, Act 26-1 ("Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘You are permitted to speak for yourself.’”).
. It was during the same overnight recess that provided the trial judge with an opportunity to reflect on his prior expression of dissatisfaction with Delgado's conduct that an incident occurred, which Delgado reported to the trial court the next morning. As reported by Delgado, about ten to fifteen minutes after the court had excused the jury (and thereafter excused counsel), he was proceeding down the courthouse escalators when he was confronted by Kleindienst who, while waving his finger in Delgado’s face, threatened to "bust" Delgado in the mouth. Delgado reported that the threat was repeated several times in the presence of a number of police officers, who were apparently witnesses in the case. Delgado stated that he could not tell whether any jurors witnessed the incident and requested that they be voir dired. Kleindienst’s only response was to indicate, when asked by the court, that he had no objection to such a voir dire. As I set forth hereafter, Kleindienst resumed his verbal assault upon counsel in closing argument.
. To what extent, if any, the trial judge may have been influenced by what he characterized as the "tactical reasons" for the prosecutor’s actions is not clear from this record. If this factor was in fact considered by the trial court, such consideration was manifestly improper. See Young, supra, 470 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038; Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354 (D.C.1979).
. The issue is not whether, as the majority implies, Dorsey's references can be attributed to bad faith on the part of the prosecutor. The issue is whether the trial judge erred in allowing the repeated use of the term "Dirty Harry” and whether the defendant was prejudiced thereby. Carter v. United States, 497 A.2d 438, 441 (D.C.1985), cited by the majority is inapposite.
. The majority dismisses the comment that defense counsel "sandbagged” a witness, because no objection was made. I question the assurance with which the majority concludes that an objection was not registered to the "sandbagging” remark. Although I agree that the objection was not registered immediately after the comment was made, my reading of the transcript indicates that defense counsel waited until the prosecutor finished his thought before objecting, which objection was recorded on the following page of the trial transcript and was immediately overruled. This practice conformed with the trial judge’s stated preference that objections during argument be made sparingly. Thus, it is wrong to penalize the attorney for following the preferred practice of the trial court. See e.g., Hawthorne v. United States, 476 A.2d 164, 169-70 (D.C.1984) (despite trial court's admonition to make contemporaneous objections, objections made after initial closing argument sufficient to preserve substantial prejudice review).
. In closing, the prosecutor stated:
And then comes in Ms. Dorsey. Poor Ms. Dorsey.... She took the stand, took an oath and said, yeah, I’m an addict. You saw her. But she had the human decency because she thought it was wrong to shoot a cop to come in here, take the stand and endure cross-examination, and have all kinds of motives thrown at her, thrown at me. She had that basic decent human decency. She rose above her condition. You've gotta have some admiration for the Cassandra Dorseys in this world. Because among the squalor, the pushers, the hawkers, the gunmen, somebody who lives in that same family had the courage and the guts, without any promises, to come in and say it’s wrong to shoot a cop and that’s why I’m in here.
Tr. Ill 575-76.
. The prosecutor advised the jury in closing: Your job is to find the truth in this case. To find who are the truth tellers. And the Government submits then that when you sort through all the evidence you’ll find that Byron Wallace told the truth, that Jimmy Lewis told the truth. That Jerry Barnes who didn’t know these cops told the truth. That Kenny Ellerby who didn’t know those cops told the truth. As did Cassandra Dorsey.
Tr. Ill 585.
. See Transcript III at 560, 565, 569, 572, 577, 578.
. Specifically, the prosecutor stated:
Ask [Irick’s counsel] why your client didn’t tell us the truth about where you work even today for the Northern Virginia Roofing. Why your client didn't tell us the truth about whether his working in December, or in November, or in September, or who cares. And why he didn’t tell us the truth about where he was living.
Tr. Ill 584.
. For example:
Why did Mr. Irick not tell you the truth about that on the stand. (Tr. Ill 560).
[[Image here]]
And do you believe Mr. Irick the truthteller when he says these two police officers had badges, radios, guns, walkie-talkies didn’t even peep one word and say, police officer, Mr. Irick, would you mind putting the gun down. Do you believe that. Do you want to believe that. No. Didn’t happen that way. (Tr. Ill 569).
******
Who is telling the truth in this case? And why does Mr. Irick have to take the stand and tell you all those things that weren’t true. (Tr. Ill at 572).
.Defense counsel objected to the following comments: that defense counsel "slandered” the government (objection overruled at Tr. Ill 749); that defense counsel were "manipulators of the truth” (objection overruled and request to approach the bench denied at Tr. Ill 752); that defense counsel "sandbagged” a witness (objection overruled at Tr. Ill 761, see also supra at n. 9); that the government impermissibly vouched for the character of Jimmy Lewis (objection overruled at Tr. Ill 749); sarcastic references to Irick as a "truthteller" (motion for mistrial denied at Tr. Ill 605); that Irick fabricated his testimony (motion for mistrial denied at Tr. Ill 779); improper use of the word "enforcer” (motion for mistrial denied at Tr. IV 751-52, no curative instruction given); improper use of the term "Dirty Harry” (one objection sustained Tr. 1143, 1266; motion for mistrial denied at Tr. 1295-98, no curative instruction given); reading grand jury testimony into record with eight references to Irick as “Dirty Harry” (objection overruled and motion for mistrial denied at Tr. V 83-90); improper use of the term "cannon” and waving and cocking the gun in front of the jury (objection overruled and motion for mistrial denied at Tr. Ill 302-03); testimony by expert that implied that Daniels would have known whether Irick held a gun (objection sustained and curative instruction given at Tr. IV 1976-80).
. There was no objection to comments about vouching for the credibility of Dorsey as was there no objection to the two instances of arguing facts not in evidence. But see Lewis, supra, 541 A.2d at 146 (plain error for prosecutor to argue facts not in evidence and misstate testimony).
. Larry Daniels was acquitted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, two counts of assault on a police officer, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed and carrying a pistol without a» license.
. DEFENSE COUNSEL: I am asking, from what you observed that night, not personal experience, not what you think is turned up later, but at that point in time, [while on the playground] did you see any contact with that man [i.e., between Larry Daniels and the man observed to be dealing drugs by the green school door]? (emphasis added).
OFFICER WALLACE: Oh, no.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: When you said you were going over there to get stuff from the other man, did [Larry Daniels] ... say “Yeah, go on over there and see my brother. He’s got the stuff.”
OFFICER WALLACE: No, he didn’t say that.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Did he go on over there and say, "Look, I don’t really have the good stuff. He does, and I’m working for him."
OFFICER WALLACE: No, sir, he didn’t say that either. (T. 1580-81) (emphasis added).
. Smith v. United States, 558 A.2d 312 (D.C.1989) (en banc).
. Further, I am satisfied that the prosecutorial misconduct discussed earlier which was specifically directed at Jerry Daniels and Irick, spilled over and affected the verdict as to Larry Daniels.