Dustin Duty
Incident Date: May 29, 2013
Jurisdiction:4th Circuit
County: Duval
Charge: Robbery
Conviction: Robbery
Sentence: 20 years
Year of Conviction:
Exonerated: 2021
Sentence Served: 8
Real perpetrator found?
Contributing Causes: Mistaken Witness ID, Perjury or False Accusation, Official Misconduct, Inadequate Legal Defense
Compensation? No
​​The Crime
​​
On the afternoon of May 29, 2013, 29-year-old Tiffany Saam was robbed at knifepoint while walking on Cedar Street in downtown Jacksonville, Florida. Saam walked to her apartment about 5 minutes away and called 911 at 3:37 p.m.
​
The Trial
On December 16, 2013, a jury was selected. Opening statements were made to the jury on December 17. Saam testified and identified Duty as the robber.
During cross-examination, Crick asked Detective Nieto, “And through your investigation and the interview you conducted, did you learn of any potential witnesses that you would follow up with?”
“I did not have any specific witnesses by name, like full name, address, phone number or anything like that,” Nieto testified. “So, no, I did not.”
“Do you recall being provided with the name Fred Davis?” Crick asked.
“I don’t remember a Fred Davis name being provided to me,” Nieto said.
That afternoon, the lawyers gave their final arguments. The jury began deliberating shortly before 5 p.m. One question was sent out asking if Duty was employed and if he had an alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the crime. When Crick noted that no evidence had been presented “on that topic,” the trial judge instructed the jury to rely on their recollection of the testimony. At 6:30 p.m., the jury convicted Duty of armed robbery. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
The First District Florida Court of Appeals upheld the conviction in January 2015. In September 2015, Duty, acting without a lawyer, filed a petition for post-conviction relief. His case subsequently was taken up by the University of Miami School of Law Innocence Clinic, which teamed up with the Innocence Project of Florida.
In October 2016, an amended petition was filed claiming that Duty’s trial defense lawyer, Crick, had provided an inadequate legal defense by failing to call Davis, by failing to conduct a pretrial investigation, by failing to impeach Detective Nieto with the recording of the interrogation showing that Duty had in fact provided alibi information, and by failing to seek to suppress Saam’s initial identification of Duty in the show-up on the street as a suggestive procedure.
The prosecution consented to a hearing, which was held in September 2018. Davis testified when he dropped off Duty the day of the robbery, Duty got out shirtless , leaving his shirt and beige baseball cap in the truck. Thirty minutes later, at 4:32 p.m., Davis got a phone call from a police officer who asked if he knew Duty. When Davis said he did, the officer said he had been charged with robbery and hung up without attempting to confirm Duty’s alibi. Davis testified that he remembered the call was 30 minutes after he had dropped off Duty, because he remembered thinking, “Dang, all in 30 minutes?”
Davis testified that this brief phone call was the only call he received from police.
Davis also testified that prior to trial, Crick contacted him twice, with each conversation lasting ten minutes or less. During these conversations, Davis said, he corroborated Duty’s story. Additionally, Davis said he told Crick that, on the day of the crime, Duty got out without his shirt and his hat. Davis also testified that Crick did not ask him whether he had any phone records that could help pinpoint what time he dropped off Duty.
Davis said that the day before Duty’s trial, Crick asked him to be present and testify as a witness. He said he came to court, but was never called to testify. “It was like I came for nothing. He seen me and didn’t say anything,” Davis testified.
Davis said that after Duty was convicted, Crick asked him to come to the sentencing hearing. Although Crick discussed the possibility of getting Davis’s phone records, nothing was done.
Postconviction
​
On July 15, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal reversed Judge Salvador’s ruling and granted Duty a new trial. The court ruled that Crick had provided an inadequate legal defense. “[W]e find trial counsel’s performance was not that of a reasonably effective trial attorney,” the court ruled.
The court also declared that Crick should have used the interrogation video to impeach Detective Nieto. “The interrogation video directly impeaches Detective Nieto’s trial testimony,” the court said. “If the video had been presented to the jury, Detective Nieto’s credibility would have been in question.” The court said Crick’s concern about Duty’s profanity “does not reasonably raise a concern.”
The appeals court also ruled that Crick should have sought to suppress the show-up identification. “Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find the show-up identification procedures here were unduly and unnecessarily suggestive, and trial counsel should have moved to suppress the show-up identification,” the court said.
On October 27, 2021, the Fourth Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s office dismissed the charge. Duty was released, more than eight years after he was arrested.
Duty filed a legal malpractice case against his trial attorneys and the public defenders office in Duval County Court in July, 2023
​
