Anthony Brown

The Crime 

Shortly before 7 p.m. on the 28th of January in 2014, a black man wearing a hat approached two workers stocking shelves at a Dollar Tree in Durham asking to buy a pack of gum. One went to the register to cash the man out, and moments later, he threatened her with an object hidden in his jacket pocket that made a “click” noise and demanded money. The worker and her associate complied, unlocked the cash register, and emptied it of all the bills. The robber left the store with $208. After he left, the two workers locked the store and called the police.

The Investigation 

While at the Dollar Tree, Durham police interviewed the two witnesses. Kristin Hunt, the white assistant manager, described the robber as having a “stocky” build, and Brittany Evans, a black cashier, told police that the robber was “pudgy in the face.” Neither Hunt nor Evans noted the presence of a beard, and the robber was not wearing any sort of mask, leaving his face visible to the workers. While the robbery was caught on the surveillance cameras recording the registers, it did not capture a clear view of the robber’s face. Police lifted eight prints, seven from the front door of the Dollar Tree and one from the pack of gum that the robber held and placed on the counter. After analyzing the prints, police found that one of the prints from the door matched with Anthony Brown. On February 1st, Anthony was arrested on unrelated charges and in his arrest photo he has a full beard.  

Based on the print match, police prepared three suspect photo lineups, which included Anthony and six other black men. Hunt first identified another person in the lineup before she chose Anthony, and when identifying Anthony, she told police that she remembered that the robber did not have any facial hair. Her reason for picking Anthony in the lineup was because of “the look in his eyes.” Ebony Green, a cashier from a different store in Durham that had been robbed ten days earlier also first picked another person with 50% confidence, then changed her pick to Anthony, saying that “maybe” if Anthony was wearing glasses and if the photo of Anthony was older (which it was not), then he might have been the robber. She also cited his eyes and his facial hair. However, Evans, who interacted with the robber much more, did not identify anyone in the lineup. This remained true after the officer pointed to Anthony and asked if she was sure he was not the robber. 

During the investigation, nothing was found that connected Anthony to the crime other than his handprint on the door. No clothing, gun or cash was found with Anthony that connected him to the store robbery, and the handprint could be explained by the fact that he was a regular at the store.

Anthony was arrested on February 6th. He denied any involvement in the robbery, rejected an offer to plead guilty to lesser crimes, and maintained his innocence. 

The Trial 

At trial, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Hunt, Anthony’s handprint found on the front door, records showing Anthony, like many others, left work at 5 p.m. the day of the robbery, and the unclear video surveillance footage. During Hunt’s testimony, she talked about how she was very scared and did not pay close attention to the robber’s face, but she did remember that the robber did not have much facial hair at all. According to his unrelated arrest photo taken days after the robbery, Anthony had a full beard, but the photo was not brought into the trial by his attorney.

Hunt also commented that the robber had more “thickness” to his face and was not nearly as “skinny” or “bony” as Anthony was in court. Based on his medical records, Anthony weighed approximately the same weight as he did the month before the robbery, but Anthony’s attorney did not bring those records in either.  

During trial, Evans testified that she was scared, but that Hunt looked even more scared than she was. Evans was able to stare at the robber and got a good look at his face and said that the robber looked nothing like Anthony. Evans knew Anthony as a regular in the store and said he was not the robber. The prosecution dismissed her words, asserting that she had read from a “script” that was part of a show “with smoke and mirrors and props.”  

Anthony was found guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon and was sentenced to nine and a half years in prison.  He was released on February 15, 2021. 

Center Involvement 

Anthony applied with the Center and his case was accepted. The Center had DNA testing done on the pack of gum the robber place on the counter, but did not get any results, likely because police swabbed the pack of gum after they lifted the fingerprint from it. In June 2019, the Durham County Clerk’s Office destroyed the evidence in Anthony’s case, including the fingerprints.  

According to North Carolina law, any biological evidence–which specifically includes fingerprints–should have been preserved throughout Anthony’s incarceration unless proper notice was given. The Durham District Attorney’s office failed to give notice of the destruction despite communication with the Center in 2018 that the case was being investigated.  

The Center filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief on Anthony’s behalf and asked the court to vacate the conviction and order a new trial based on the destruction of the evidence without proper notice in violation of the statute and ineffective assistance of counsel for not reasonably investigating or challenging the identification.

A hearing on the destruction of evidence issue surprisingly ended without any relief, although the basis of the court’s ruling is unclear. The decision was appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals and is pending.  A hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim has not been scheduled.