Cyntoia Brown: Pussy Pass Denied!

It’s a slow news day when I notice what the Kardashians are doing but in my defense, they crossed paths with my hobby of true-crime stories. (As I always knew they would.) Behold their latest celebrity cause du jour and my false positive, a violently psychotic crack whore, whore and murderess who should have been hung years ago but now just narrowly escaped another brush with care-based morality. She should not be more than a statistic but instead is slated to be a display “victim” for the Womens’ March 2019 next month.

Cyntoia Brown Will Serve 51-Year Sentence For Killing Her Alleged Assailant

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/cyntoia-brown-serve-51-sentence-180000924.html

By Sarah Midkiff, 9 December 2018

Cyntoia Brown was 16 and a victim of sex trafficking when she was arrested for killing the man who allegedly solicited her for sex, Johnny Allen. In her defense, she says she believed he was reaching for his gun to kill her. However, Tennessee’s Supreme Court clarified an earlier ruling that she must remain in prison for 51 years before she is eligible for release.

Sounds like a system out of control, eh? An underage sex trafficking victim killed her rapist in self-defense but somehow got railroaded by The System? Tennessee must be a cesspit of toxic masculinity!

The state Supreme Court’s response comes after a lawsuit was filed claiming Brown’s life sentence is unconstitutional based on a previous Supreme Court ruling that said sentencing a minor to a mandatory life sentence was against the Constitution. Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have banned life without parole for minors. Tennessee is not one of those states; there, people convicted of first-degree murder can only be released from prison after serving at least 51 years of their 60-year sentence. A U.S. District Court in Tennessee noted that her sentence was different because she received a “life sentence, not a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.”

What’s this about first-degree murder? That’s premeditated murder, as in, she was planning to murder that john from the start. The article immediately head-fakes:

The Women’s March, Kim Kardashian West, Rihanna, and LeBron James have all publicly supported Brown’s release, funded legal support, and used her case to shed light on a larger need for prison reform and the systematic racism ingrained in our justice system. “The system has failed. It’s heartbreaking to see a young girl sex trafficked then when she has the courage to fight back is jailed for life! We have to do better & do what’s right. I’ve called my attorneys yesterday to see what can be done to fix this,” Kardashian tweeted.

But we are not fooled. We want answers about how this first-degree murder charge got hung on a sex trafficking “victim”.

In 2004, Brown was forced into prostitution by a pimp known as “Cut Throat” who she believed was her boyfriend. According to court documents, Allen allegedly brought Brown to his home and paid her to have sex with him. She was under the state’s age of consent at the time. In her testimony, Brown said that Allen showed her multiple guns in his home. When she believed that he was reaching under his bed to grab a gun and shoot her, she grabbed a gun out of her purse and shot him. She was tried as an adult and convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. Brown has already served 14 years in prison.

Aggravated robbery, too. He showed his gun collection to an underage prostitute, after which she shot him… with the gun in her purse? Was this a child rape or an arms deal gone bad?

In response to the court’s decision, the Women’s March tweeted in support of Brown and other sex trafficking victims, adding that the next Women’s March on January 19, 2019 is for them as well. The organization asked their supporters to contact Tennessee’s governor, Bill Haslam, to demand Brown’s release. “Gov. Haslam has the power to #FreeCyntoia. Every day she remains in prison, he is actively choosing not to,” they tweeted.

The article stops here, dizzy from the head-faking. But I followed the links… and found her appeal briefing! Let’s get inside the brain of this either-a-victim-or-a-perp.

http://tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/browncyntoiadeniseopn.pdf

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
March 11, 2014 Session
CYNTOIA DENISE BROWN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

The Petitioner, Cyntoia Denise Brown, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief from her convictions of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery and resulting concurrent sentences of life and eight years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel, that she is “entitled to relief under error coram nobis,” that her mandatory life sentence is unconstitutional, and that she was denied due process.

Translation, she wanted to be relieved of the consequences of her convictions on the grounds her lawyer was incompetent for not letting her take the stand. A Catch-22 if there ever was one. This goes long because fisking the quack celebrity doctors trying to make a victim of her just keeps getting funnier. Feel free to skip to Conclusion at any time.

Petitioner’s convictions: On the evening of August 7, 2004, police officers from the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department responded to a 911 call and found the body of the victim, Johnny Allen, in a bedroom of his home. State v. Cyntoia Denise Brown, No. M2007-00427-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 301, at *4 (Nashville, Apr. 20 2009), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 2009). The nude victim was lying face-down on the bed in a large pool of blood, and his “hands were beneath his face, his fingers ‘kind of partially interlocked,’” as if he had been sleeping. Id. at **4, 15. An autopsy revealed that he had been shot in the back of the head and that he did not have any defensive wounds.

According to other sources, Cyntoia called 911 hours after the murder because she was tired of waiting for the story to break on the television.

Id. at **28-29. In the early morning hours of August 8, 2004, officers found the victim’s white pickup truck in a Walmart parking lot and arrested the Petitioner at a nearby hotel. Id. at *6. At the time of Petitioner’s arrest, she was sixteen years old and staying at the hotel with a man she referred to as “‘Cut.’” Id. at **6, 8.

I bet Walmart is the first place cops look when they hear “stolen vehicle” on the radio. Even before the liquor stores. Or does Walmart sell liquor now?

The Petitioner waived her Miranda rights and gave a statement to police in which she said that on the night of August 6, 2004, she was walking near a Sonic Drive-In when the victim, whom she did not know, picked her up in his truck. Id. He drove her to the Sonic, they ordered food, and the victim offered to let her spend the night at his home. Id. The Petitioner accepted the victim’s offer, and they went to his house. Id. at *9. There, the victim showed the Petitioner some guns, and they got into bed together. Id. The victim whispered to and touched the Petitioner and reached underneath the bed. Id. The Petitioner thought the victim was reaching for a gun, so she pulled a .40 caliber handgun out of her purse and shot him. Id. at *10. She took money out of the victim’s wallet and two of his guns, drove his truck to the Walmart parking lot, and had someone drive her to the hotel where she was later arrested. Id. The Petitioner denied that she was a prostitute or that she had sex with the victim. Id.

Bullshit she wasn’t a whore. “Hey there, stranger lady, do you want to share my bed tonight after I buy you dinner? But no sex, okay? I just want to do a random favor.”

And his corpse’s position was not consistent with reaching for a gun.

The Petitioner was tried as an adult, and the jury rejected her claim of self-defense,
finding her guilty of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and
especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. See id. at **34-35. The trial court merged
the murder convictions and sentenced the Petitioner to life. Id. at *35. After a sentencing
hearing, the trial court imposed a concurrent twenty-year sentence for the especially
aggravated robbery conviction.

Justice done. She went home with a john, murdered him for fun & prizes and when the police caught up, was too strung out on drugs to do better than “we weren’t having sex, I was scared and he didn’t need his truck no more”. (Not an exact quote.)

Id. On appeal, this court affirmed the Petitioner’s murder convictions but modified her conviction of especially aggravated robbery to aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and remanded the case for sentencing as to that offense. Id. at *3. On remand, the trial court sentenced her to eight years and ordered that she serve the sentence concurrently with the life sentence.

Pussy pass #1.

After our supreme court denied the Petitioner’s application for permission to appeal,
she filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief based, in pertinent part, on the
denial of the effective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence “that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome played a part in [her] actions on the night in question.” The postconviction court appointed counsel, and counsel filed an amended petition, maintaining that the Petitioner received the ineffective assistance of counsel and alleging that her life sentence was unconstitutional.

The postconviction court listened to that sack of lies? “I murdered him because my Fetal Alcohol Syndrome was acting up” is worse than the Twinkie Defense.

Pussy Pass #2

The record reflects that “counsel” and “co-counsel” represented the Petitioner at trial.
At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, counsel testified for the Petitioner that she and co-counsel began representing the Petitioner after the Petitioner’s transfer hearing in juvenile court. The Petitioner had testified at the transfer hearing, and trial counsel reviewed tapes of the hearing. Counsel said that she and the Petitioner had many discussions about whether the Petitioner should testify at trial and that “there were parts of her [transfer hearing] testimony that were worrisome for us if they came out at trial.” Counsel thought that if the Petitioner’s trial testimony differed from her transfer hearing testimony, the State would be able to impeach her on cross-examination. Counsel stated, “I, apparently, was wrong, but I do recall having that conversation with her.” Counsel said that there were other reasons why she did not want the Petitioner to testify but that she assumed that particular reason “played a factor” in the Petitioner’s decision.

That’s not incompetence. I wouldn’t let Cyntoia even ask to use the bathroom after what she said to the investigating police.

Counsel testified that the Petitioner had received a mental evaluation for juvenile court
and that trial counsel had her re-evaluated. Counsel received three bankers boxes from the Petitioner’s juvenile court attorney, and one of those boxes was full of the Petitioner’s
psychological and medical records. Counsel reviewed everything in the boxes and did not seek an expert in fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). Regarding the disorder, counsel stated, “I am sure I had heard of it. . . . I became much more familiar with it after Mr. [Dan] Birman found or interviewed some people.”

*checks* FASD manifests mainly as congenital organ defects and poor attention span/concentration. Sounds treatable by Ritalin, frankly. Unpredictable bursts of homicidal rage are not associated with the disorder. It’s not like Cyntoia accidentally drove his car home instead of hers.

On cross-examination, counsel testified that she became licensed to practice law in
1992 and that for the first sixteen years of her practice, including the Petitioner’s 2006 trial, she practiced criminal law exclusively. Counsel estimated that at the time of the Petitioner’s trial, she had tried fifty to sixty cases. The Petitioner had given a videotaped statement to police, and trial counsel filed a motion to suppress the statement. Trial counsel also gave Dr. William Bernet, a forensic psychiatrist from Vanderbilt University, the results of the Petitioner’s previous mental evaluations. Dr. Bernet re-evaluated the Petitioner and testified at the suppression hearing about whether the Petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived her Miranda rights prior to giving her statement to police.

Give it a rest, legal beagle. The “my client is too stupid to understand her Miranda rights” is a played-out mine. Spoiler, they’ll also argue that Cyntoia is IQ 134 in this same document.

Counsel described the Petitioner as “brilliant” but said that “her personality was all over the place and you didn’t know who you were going to be talking to from time-to-time, but it wasn’t competency issues, it was more like there was something wrong that we couldn’t figure out what it was.”

She chose a life of drugs, prostitution and violence, that’s what was wrong with her. You can have high IQ and still be dumb enough to park your victim’s stolen vehicle in view of store surveillance cameras where the cops can see the license plate while driving past.

Counsel testified that she and co-counsel considered using a mental health defense but decided against it because “unless you have some sort of objective evidence to go with it 
such as a brain scan that showed damage or something that juries seem hesitant to really give a lot of weight to psychological testimony.”

Yes, I myself once refused to award damages due to a lack of objective evidence. Jurors can be so unreasonable like that.

I do not understand the insanity defense. It should be something the prosecutor argues in order to prove the necessity of a humane execution, not something the defense argues in order to get the perp back in circulation. For the truly insane, a quick death would be God’s own mercy. Don’t make them live with their minds like that.

Trial counsel also decided not to use a mental health defense because many of Dr. Bernet’s opinions were based on “bad things” about the Petitioner that trial counsel did not want revealed to the jury.

Again, that’s not incompetent representation. What are “bad things”, you ask?

…Counsel was worried that the Petitioner would lose her temper on cross-examination because the Petitioner had lost her temper in meetings with trial counsel, had lost her temper with guards, and “had an inability at times to control her emotions.”

Wife material! And elsewhere:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cyntoia-brown-laughed-killing-man-223330960.html

Brown, who has seen support from celebrities in recent days, laughed after she killed a man who’d paid her for sex and later threatened to kill nurses after she was arrested.

…About a week after she was booked, Brown was transported to the Western Mental Health Institute for an evaluation. She wanted to call her adoptive mother, Ellenette Brown, and a nurse didn’t let her. So she attacked the nurse, according to The Scene.

“I shot that man in the back of the head,” she allegedly screamed, “and bitch, I’m gonna shoot you three times in the back of the head and would love to see your blood splatter on the wall.”

Yahoo argues that her laughing about the sex and violence was only a coping mechanism. True or not, such behavior is not something a competent defender wants the jury to know about. To say nothing of confessing to the murder while threatening to murder the psych ward nurse restraining you for post-arrest mental evaluation.

Back to the appeal,

…If trial counsel had presented a mental health expert at trial, the State could have cross-examined the expert about the Petitioner’s attempt to escape from Western Mental Health Institute (WMHI), her drug use, her asking someone after the shooting to take her back to the victim’s house so she could take the rest of his property, her lengthy juvenile history, and her disciplinary issues at the juvenile detention center and jail. She also acknowledged that in a pretrial jailhouse telephone call to her adoptive mother, she told her mother that she “executed” the victim. The Petitioner had understood the charges against her and received a transcript of her statement to police before trial. In the statement, she told the police that she bought the gun off the street. She said she lied in the statement about where she got the gun in order to protect Cut because she was afraid of him. She acknowledged that in the statement, she told the police that she did not know what happened to the gun after the shooting. She said she was telling the truth because she gave the gun to Cut and did not know what he did with it. The Petitioner stated that even though the State could have cross-examined her about all of those things, she still had wanted to testify at trial.

Sure, that sounds like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to me. I’ll guess she also refused a plea deal to testify against Cut, her “abuser”, because FAS.

Dr. Richard Adler, a clinical and forensic psychologist from Seattle, Washington, testified that FASD encompassed five different disorders, including FAS and Alcohol Related Neurodevelopmental Disorder (ARND), all of which “relate to the fact that alcohol is a particularly heinous poison to the developing fetus.” Dr. Adler explained that the “primary disability” in FASD was damage to the baby’s brain. As a person with FASD grew up, the person also experienced “secondary disabilities” such as having trouble with school, behavior, obtaining employment, and the law.

Dr. Adler testified that the Petitioner had a “remarkable” I.Q. of 134 but that she did not function like a typical person with such high intelligence. He stated that “her functional abilities are terrible and they are so terrible they are equivalent to a person with mild mental retardation.”

Thereby proving that intelligence is not wisdom.

Dr. Adler testified that he found evidence of childhood psychosis in the Petitioner’s medical records. For example, during an episode at Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute, the Petitioner had “appeared to be completely out of touch with reality.” A test administered to the Petitioner the next day found that she “‘might be becoming psychotic, but she is able to control her thoughts some of the time.’” He stated that in 2000, “among the diagnoses in her records was that she might have bipolar disorder with psychotic features or they were concerned about psychotic disorder not otherwise specified.” He said that a test administered to the Petitioner in 2002 found her to have “dissociation, which is a very primitive mental defense mechanism” and that dissociation was a “rare and worrisome psychiatric symptom.”

Now this is plausible. But “bipolar disorder with psychotic features” doesn’t play on the heartstrings as well as “her mommy drank too much”. Safe bet, alcohol wasn’t the drug(s) they should have been asking the birth mother about. “They” not meaning Adler. He wasn’t there.

On cross-examination, Dr. Adler acknowledged that he was retained by the Petitioner’s post-conviction attorneys and was being paid for his work and appearance in court. He stated that he was going to be paid “in the 10 to $12,000 range up to this moment, some things haven’t been billed yet” and that the amount did not include the work of his two colleagues.

More important than “how much” is “who” is paying his bills. I hope a Kardashian gets Cyntoia for a cellmate.

Dr. Adler said that although FASD was not specifically mentioned in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), “the negative affect of alcohol is mentioned in the section of mental retardation because fetal alcohol is the number one cause of mental retardation, so its in that section.” His actual diagnosis of the Petitioner was “cognitive disorder not otherwise specified 294.9,” which was in the DSM. Dr. Adler acknowledged that he never met or spoke with the Petitioner’s biological mother and that he learned about her alcohol consumption from an affidavit in which she described the amount and frequency of her alcohol consumption during her pregnancy. He also acknowledged that the Petitioner received previous mental evaluations and was never diagnosed with FASD.

While diagnosing her with just about everything else. On to a new doctor!

Dr. Paul Connor, a clinical psychologist specializing in neuropsychology, the study
of brain function, testified about his extensive background in fetal alcohol research. …

Dr. Connor testified that the Petitioner’s I.Q. was 134, meaning she was “very bright,” and that in order to make a diagnosis of FASD, the CDC required three domains of deficit. The Petitioner’s evaluation showed “absolute deficits” in five domains. First, she had deficits in visual/spatial understanding and reasoning, which was being able to take in complex information from the environment, reason through it, remember it, and reproduce it later. Second, she had deficits in motor coordination. Third, she had deficits in attention, particularly impulsivity. Dr. Connor observed that the Petitionerstarted tasks quickly, talked quickly, was “a little fidgety,” and became distracted fairly easily. Fourth and fifth, the Petitioner had deficits in two areas of adaptive functioning: communication skills and socialization skills.

Yes, Doctor Connor, we already know that the crack whore who emptied her victim’s brainpan with a .40 automatic has poor communication/socialization skills, if not a lack of motor coordination. She could drive a vehicle, after all. Let’s try a third doctor!

Dr. Natalie Novick Brown, a clinical and forensic psychologist, testified that she began working in the area of FASD in the mid-1990’s and regularly collaborated with Drs. Adler and Connor because “it’s the standard of care in FASD assessment to have multidisciplinary practitioners involved in the diagnosis.”

Translation, FASD closely resembles other disorders of impulsivity, motor control and poor communication. None of which might justify premeditated murder.

Dr. Brown testified that she evaluated the Petitioner in June 2011. The evaluation consisted of an interview, additional testing, and a review of all of the Petitioner’s documented information, including her medical records, school records, juvenile court records, mental health institute records, and statement to police about the shooting. Dr. Brown explained that normal teenagers “do kind of crazy foolish bazaar things sometimes” because their “executive function processes are not fully formed yet and they are not thinking as efficiently as they ultimately will be when they reach their 20’s.”

Dr. Brown noted that despite the Petitioner’s high I.Q., she exhibited “foolish” behavior during the event by taking items from the victim’s home that could be traced back to her, driving his truck, leaving his truck in a well-lit Walmart parking lot with cameras, telling Cut that she had killed someone, and using the victim’s cellular telephone to call 911. Dr. Brown said that although the Petitioner had been on a cocaine “bender” for the two weeks leading up to the victim’s death, her drug use did not explain her behavior.

When you’re bringing in three psychiatrists to testify that Barbie’s two prior weeks of cocaine binging didn’t alter her mental disorders enough to understand that murder was wrong, it’s time to give up. No matter how much money the ACLU is throwing at you.

On cross-examination, Dr. Brown testified that she could not say the Petitioner’s cocaine use affected her judgment on the day of the shooting. She acknowledged that if she had testified at trial, the State could have cross-examined her about the Petitioner’s escapes
from custody and a detailed letter the Petitioner wrote from WMHI, asking someone to help her escape. Dr. Brown said the letter was not inconsistent with someone with FASD because writing it was “foolish” and “fits in” with the Petitioner’s other foolish behaviors.

Being stupid is not a crime but acting stupid sure can be.

The Petitioner may have been trying to cover up what actually happened, or her tendency to confabulate may have caused her to fill in fabricated information. Although the Petitioner appeared to be lying, she was actually confabulating.

Dr. Brown acknowledged that some of the Petitioner’s behaviors associated with the shooting were not foolish. For example, the Petitioner gave the gun to Cut and wiped fingerprints off the victim’s truck as Cut had instructed.

To claim insanity, a defendant must act as though he doesn’t understand that what he did was wrong. Cyntoia telling the cops what happened when they asked is consistent with that. Her cleaning up the crime scene afterwards is not.

Cut was murdered several months after the Petitioner’s arrest and, therefore, was not available to contest anything she said.

I missed my guess about Cyntoia refusing a plea bargain to rat out Cut. But only on a technicality!

On redirect examination, Dr. Brown testified that by not hearing about the Petitioner’s FASD, the jury did not have “a clear picture” of the Petitioner or her mental state. Dr. Brown thought the Petitioner could function well in society and would be a low risk to reoffend if she lived in a structured environment and received support and treatment.

Hey… Doctor Barbie… you just argued that she was too young and mentally incompetent to not commit murder. I don’t think her problem is lack of a safe space. But if “structured environment” means “life in prison” then the State of Tennessee agrees with you.

On recrossexamination, Dr. Brown acknowledged that extensive efforts were used to treat the Petitioner prior to the shooting and that the Petitioner was uncooperative.

On re-recrossexamination, Dr. Brown didn’t lie, she confabulated.

Conclusion

The Petitioner claims that she is entitled to post-conviction relief because trial counsel were ineffective for giving her erroneous legal advice that resulted in her decision not to testify at trial; for failing to interview or investigate her biological mother; and by failing to investigate the case adequately, which resulted in their failing to present a defense based upon her severe mental disease and defect. The State argues that the Petitioner has not shown that she received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We agree with the State.

Boom! Pussy Pass #3 DENIED.

But the celebrities are planning to bring up Cyntoia again in January 2019 as part of Women’s March 2019. Along with illegal immigration and the UN Charter.

 

3 thoughts on “Cyntoia Brown: Pussy Pass Denied!

  1. “I shot that man in the back of the head,” she allegedly screamed, “and bitch, I’m gonna shoot you three times in the back of the head and would love to see your blood splatter on the wall.”

    Always love it when they reveal just how much they were self-defending themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Pingback: Choose the Form of the Destructor 6 AND 7! | Gunner Q

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s