Mackenzie Shirilla Begs for Prison Release

Life shouldn't be like this. Diamond and. Davion should be here. She belongs in. prison. Mackenzie Shirilla, the teenager. convicted of intentionally driving her. car into a brick wall killing two young. men, she's serving her sentence at the. women's reformatory out in Ohio while. her family [music]. and her legal team fight to get her out. And this is one angle we haven't really. discussed yet. Does she have a chance? Does she have a legal leg to stand. [music] on especially after the Netflix. documentary came out? Well, I'll tell. you what, we have a powerhouse criminal.

defense attorney coming on to break down. Shirilla's appeal arguments [music] and. what we can expect next. Welcome to. Sidebar presented by Law & Crime. I'm. Jesse Weber. Everybody loves a self-made [music]. success story, but John Morgan says that. is not how real life works. The great. John Morgan, everybody, in his new book. Life is Luck, the founder of Morgan &. Morgan gets [music] real about the role. that luck plays in success and how to. recognize opportunity when it shows up.

And that seed was just lucky. From. delivering newspapers as a kid to. building America's largest injury law. [music] firm, Morgan shares the moments. that change everything. It's a how-to. book. >> [music]. >> to approach life, luck, and ultimately. success. This isn't another billionaire. memoir full of cheesy [music] advice. It's honest, blunt, and packed with. lessons on turning good luck and bad. luck into something [music] bigger. So, I hope people read it. I hope people. appreciate it. Buy Life is Luck now on.

amazon.forpeople.com/lifeisluck. When a judge sentenced killer Mackenzie. Shirilla to prison in 2023, the teenager appeared stunned. She's. sentenced on count two, the murder of. Davion Flanagan, 15 years to life. She's sentenced on count one, the murder. of Dominic Russo, 15 years to life to be. served concurrent to each other. with credit for time served. The judge.

determined, since this was a bench. trial, the case was tried before a. judge, not a jury, so a judge determined. that Ohio prosecutors had proved beyond. a reasonable doubt that Mackenzie. Shirilla had driven her car into the. side of a brick building on purpose. Her. long-time on-again, off-again boyfriend, Dominic Russo, and their friend, Davion. Flanagan, were killed. Prosecution's. evidence at trial portrayed Shirilla as. a self-centered, bratty teen who. couldn't handle Dominic's decision to. basically end things, and in the early. morning hours of July 31st, 2022, the.

17-year-old mashed down the accelerator, never tried to brake, this is according. to investigative reports, sailing over a. curb, through a business sign, and into. a brick wall. And Shirilla has insisted. ever since then that she has no memory. whatsoever of the crash or the minutes. leading up to it. She and her family. have suggested that she has a diagnosis. of POTS, a medical condition that can. cause dizziness and fainting. They claim. Shirilla must have blacked out, which is. why she drove off the road. Shirilla's. mother testified at the bench trial that.

she'd seen her daughter exhibit symptoms. of POTS, but the defense never called a. medical expert to testify that Shirilla. actually has the condition. At least one. former inmate who claimed to have. interacted with Shirilla behind bars. said she never noticed any medical. problems like this. There was evidence. of drug use found at the scene, right? The marijuana vape pen, the mushrooms, but toxicology testing on Shirilla. showed just trace amounts of THC in her. system. She hadn't been drinking, she. hadn't been using other drugs before the. crash. And this is despite multiple. posts on her social media profiles. showing her seemingly drinking often.

while allegedly smoking marijuana or. otherwise acting recklessly. Now, Shirilla was arrested several months. after this tragedy in November of 2022. And at her trial the next year, the. following year, the judge found her. guilty of four counts of murder, four. counts of felonious assault, two counts. of aggravated vehicular homicide, one. count of drug possession, and one count. of possessing criminal tools. But. Shirilla and her family have continued. to profess her innocence including in. her first on-camera interview in a new. documentary on Netflix called The Crash.

And Shirilla told the documentary's. producers, "I'm not a monster. I'm not. saying I'm innocent. I was a driver of a. tragedy, but I'm not a murderer." And. when asked about her relationship with. Dominick, Shirilla said, "We would have. probably been married by now. We argued, we got back together, we broke up, we. got back together. It was rocky, but it. was good. We were in love." And it turns. out this issue of whether Mackenzie. Shirilla and Dominick were in a good. place relationship-wise, that is an. issue that was a part of Shirilla's.

appeals. And so to talk about her. arguments and what is going on, the. Appeals Court, right, the Supreme Court, I want to welcome back on here on. Sidebar. So happy to have her, criminal. defense attorney Diane Menashe. Diane, thank you so much for taking the time. It's good to see you. Thanks for having me. Good to see you. So I understand you didn't watch, you. know, the complete documentary, but. you've seen a bunch of parts of it. I. think I just generally speaking have to. ask you because one of the thing that. was noted is that at the end of the. documentary, it seems her attorney was. in the room with her, was with Mackenzie.

as she's doing this interview. Like, would you recommend a client sit down. and do this as, you know, the appellate. arguments are. happening? Yes, she's been defeated and. we're going to talk about why and what's. next, but would you ever recommend for a. client to do an interview like this from. behind bars for a documentary? I think it goes one step further. Not. only would I not recommend, but I would. stop them from doing it, right? Because. of exactly what's happened. Um I mean,

the optics are just so bad. Um and and. particularly as you said, while she's. appealing her case and trying to find. relief in some way, certainly giving an. interview is just a really bad bad idea. Because anything she says could be used. against her in the the arguments or in a. future trial? Well, for sure. And you know, if you are. if they were to get the relief they're. seeking, which is ultimately new trial, everything she's saying could be used. against her. Um I also just think, you. know, in terms of which is really the.

main concern is obviously anything could. be used against her. So, I want to go through some of this. with you and get your expertise and why. this has happened. Um I want to go back. to how this could also affect her moving. forward because. after Shurilla was convicted and she was. sentenced to life in prison with her. first parole eligibility after 15 years, her legal team turned to the appeal. process. And so, to give an example, she. filed an appeal with the 8th District. Court of Appeals in Ohio. And in its. response, to give everybody an idea, for. example, the court announced that the. judgment was affirmed. So, meaning the.

appeals court essentially didn't find. Mackenzie Shurilla's arguments to be. strong enough for a reversal. And just. to go through some of this and get your. insight on it. Um so, from her direct. appeal, quote, "The juvenile court erred. when it concluded that the state. presented sufficient credible evidence. to demonstrate probable cause to believe. that Shurilla purposely and or knowingly. caused the deaths of DR and DF." So, essentially, my understanding was the. argument would be this case should have. never left the juvenile court system, that there wasn't enough solid evidence. or credible evidence. Shurilla was 17.

when the crash happened and reportedly. turned 18 while recovering in the. hospital. And in its response, the trial. court said, "At this stage of the. proceedings, the state was not required. to prove the truth of the allegations. against Shurilla. It had to present. credible evidence showing probable cause. supporting each element of the offenses. charged. Based on the evidence presented. at the probable cause hearing, we. disagree with Shurilla that the state. failed to meet this burden." Now, Diana, as far as what I've just told you, do I. have it right about here and do I have.

it right about what's going on here? And. talk to me about the decision to move a. case from juvenile court to adult court. Well, you do have it right. I I will say. though in Ohio, murder and aggravated. murder are mandatory bind over cases. So, and they're not discretionary. And. the only thing in those mandatory. bindover cases that's necessary is the. state, as you just said, put forth. enough to meet a probable cause burden. Um the judge in those instances in. juvenile court, that hearing is. literally just just the four corners of. do they have probable cause? And and I.

think we're just really good to remind. everyone is certainly that's not proof. beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just. sufficient evidence that a crime has. been committed. Um and it's really just. kind of a check and balance in a. mandatory bindover situation. So, the. state presented that mandatory bindover, it was sent up to the adult court, and. it's as simple as that. And talk to me about the second one cuz. it's kind of related. The second. assignment of error. The state failed to. introduce sufficient evidence to sustain.

the convictions in violation of. Shrilla's right to due process of law as. guaranteed by Article 1 Section 10 of. the Ohio Constitution, as well as the. 14th Amendment to the United States. Constitution. Basically, before we go. further, Diane, what does that mean? What are they saying there? Well, I think there's an interesting. issue is that the state at the juvenile. level presented evidence for both. aggravated murder and murder. And as I. understand it, there wasn't probable. cause found to support aggravated. murder, which is prior calculation and.

design. But the trial court judge at the. juvenile level found certainly that. there was evidence to support purpose or. intent. And that's why ultimately when. it was bound over, they ended up. charging her with the two counts of. murder and and all the other felonious. assaults, etc. So, um I I think really. what they're doing in that argument, Jesse, is they're trying to tee up a. constitutional issue cuz I know, as you. know, the Supreme Court of Ohio or any. state will only take a case if there's a. constitutional issue at play. So, really. they were just teeing it up in the 8th.

District, trying to get into the Supreme. Court. And and the idea is is that if. you there's insufficient evidence it. violates a client's constitutional. rights, due process rights. That's exactly right. And then if you. lose at the at the. direct appeal level, the hope is is that. you preserve that constitutional issue. and the Supreme Court will then take it. Interesting. So again, the court said. the appeals court wrote, "This evidence. was sufficient for the fact finder to. conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that. Shirilla crashed the vehicle purposely.

intending to kill Flanagan and Russo. We. therefore overrule Shirilla's second. assignment of error." And to me it seems. the answer would be yes, right? I mean. when you look at this case and you think. about the evidence that was presented, what was it for you? Was it the. accelerator? Was it the surveillance. footage? I think the accelerator of the. car not braking it was, you know, pretty. strong. And I think I think between the black. box, right? Which is the accelerator, the certainly the turn of the vehicle, which is, you know, that footage and and. the accelerator and I think not just the.

accelerator but critically never. braking, right? So that that is really. huge. And I think obviously she made. some statements afterwards that were. clearly. clearly problematic for her. But I I I. think just the acceleration it's a 35, the upward speed was noted to be 69. And then we know that she's not under, you know, the influence of alcohol. I I. know they raised that pots issue, but as. I read it, you know, they pulled her BMV. records. She'd never raised any medical.

issues before. She had no other medical, you know, records to support that. diagnosis. So. I think the evidence showed she was real. clear-headed when she put that. accelerator on and didn't brake. This next one's interesting. It's the. next alleged error put forward by the. defense. Shirilla's convictions are. against the manifest weight of the. evidence. The court wrote, "Reversal of. manifest weight grounds is reserved for. the exceptional case in which the. evidence weighs heavily against the. conviction." And they say this case is.

not that. I mean, I guess I'm not. surprised based on the what the. conversation we're having. My My other. question would be, like what's an. example of of where that would work? Like what's a law school example of. where it's a reversal on manifest weight. grounds? Like what is something where. you're like there's no way the jury or. the judge should have found someone. guilty? You know where I tend to see the. manifest weight argument actually really. have some teeth is in self-defense. cases. Ooh, interesting. >> know, yeah, where it's like, you know, and and I have a really viable.

self-defense case right now and I I. I could say this truly, I think that the. manifest weight there. um could really be applicable. But where. they're going at here is they're they're. claiming there just isn't circumstantial. evidence to show intent. And I think. we've already talked about it, the. accelerator, the lack of breaking, her. statements, you know, the prior the the. history of the relationship. Circumstantially, right, the state. certainly seemed to put forth a case. that that she had intent to kill. Purpose. Um this one's interesting. This one's.

different. Assignment of error four goes. to something we've talked about a lot. here on Sidebar, 404B evidence. So. evidence of apparent wrongdoing by a. defendant not necessarily directly. committed to the crime. We talked about. this a lot in the Alec Murdoch case, right? And financial crimes evidence, can it prejudice the jury character, right? So defend Sherrell's defense. argues the trial court erred by. permitting the state to introduce. character and or other acts evidence. during its case in chief, thereby. depriving Sherrell of her right to a.

fair trial in violation of the United. States and Ohio Constitutions. In its. response, the court points out that the. trial judge already settled this issue. Quote, "The state had filed both a. notice of intent to use other acts. evidence under evidence rule 404B, as. well as a motion to introduce other acts. evidence, including evidence that on. July 17th, 2022, Sherrell was driving on. Interstate 71 with Russo as a passenger. when she threatened to immediately crash. the vehicle during a disagreement. between them and that she was observed.

hitting him with her hands during that. incident. Also, the notice indicated. that the state intended to introduce. evidence that on occasion in July 2022, Shirilla came to Russo's home and when. he refused to allow her entry, angrily. yelled at him, beat on the door, and. threatened him. Now, by the way, we got. our hands on these phone calls that were. apparently recorded by Dominic in which. he and McKenzie Shirilla can be heard. arguing and threatening one another. Just want to play that for you. Why. would I just let you in my house if you. broke up with me and you're threatening. to break my Hello. Like you're.

threatening to key my car, threatening. to break the doors, and. >> if you do not let me in the house. You're going to key my car if you if I. do not let you. >> If you don't let me in the house, yes. What the. Yeah, I know. So, just let me in the. house. No. Like why why can't you just be like. like calm at least for a second and I. can feel comfortable letting you in the. >> I am calm. I don't think you get to. decide that with your weird You really. threatening to key You really. threatening. to. key my car and What what else are you.

threatening? Dom, I'm going to give you one last. chance to open the door and I'm going to. leave and do what I said I was going to. do. Now, the appeals court response. continues. The state stated that this. evidence was not being offered to show. Shirilla's bad character, but rather to. prove Shirilla's motive, intent, knowledge, absence of mistake or. accident, to provide context with. respect to Shirilla's relationship with. Russo. Specifically, the state argued as. follows: Shirilla's past threats and. aggression toward Russo provide an. important perspective of how Shirilla. responds in situations where she is.

displeased or in disagreement with. others. Further, the evidence shows that. Shirilla was aware of her ability to. cause harm to the victims, especially by. means of her own vehicle, and how she. could use the power of threats and. control to ultimately reach the outcome. she desired. Diane, does this decision. make sense? Because on one hand, you can. understand, right? Like you don't want. to just throw everything at the defense. You just uh defended that maybe highly. prejudicial that's not related. You. know, the jury's going to say, "Well, if. they acted this way in this occasion, she must have done this here." But why.

is this different? And or maybe maybe. you disagree. I don't know. You tell me. I think it actually meets the exception. and was properly uh let in. I I would. just say that absence of mistake is. really huge, right? Um and not only. that, Jesse, the acts that were allowed. in under 404 were really timely, right? They were very close in time to the the. ultimate incident itself, which is. really an important factor that the. courts weigh into. You know, it's one. thing to be introducing bad acts that. happened years prior. But this was like.

the same 30 days. So, really significant. there. I also think though that issue. that was raised on appeal, this was a. bench trial. And literally a judge is. also an attorney, right? They're trained. in law and they're they're meant to. There's an assumption that they will. know how to appropriately weigh that. type of other acts evidence and and not. use it to prejudice the defendant in a. certain way. I would say and and you. know, when I've been reading up on this. case, I mean, what strikes me is like. why was this not tried to a jury? I.

mean, some people would say cuz the. facts are so bad. But Jesse, you and I. know, you know, um you need one, right? Um and certainly, you know, with a. judge, uh it's only one. Uh and and so. it's that's a really interesting issue. But I think the 404B that should have. been let in, I think any judge would let. it in. And moreover, like it's a bench. trial. So, raising it on appeal it it. has even less teeth, I think. Let me ask. you about that. Uh. I don't know if it's the cynical version. of me, but it it is interesting to think.

about. Whenever we talk about what. evidence can or cannot be let in, if you. talk about the evidence that's not. allowed in, the jury, unless they were. improperly reading news articles about. it, they will have no idea about this. evidence. They should know nothing about. it. The judge knows everything. The. judge knows every piece of evidence that. wasn't allowed in. Are we, generally. speaking, confident that a judge is. going to put that to the side and said, "I'm putting my judge my judge cap on to. determine whether or not this evidence. is admissible, and if it's not.

admissible, I'm going to put it to the. side. And then when it comes time to to. make the decision, I'm never even going. to think about that once again because, you know, on one hand you say, "Listen, that's the responsibility. They know. what's allowed in. They know what to. consider more than a you know, maybe. maybe an average everyday person.". But someone might look at that and say, "I I'm skeptical.". So, I'm going to answer this in an. indirect way by saying in 29 years I've. never tried a case to the bench. There you go. Okay. There you go. People will make of it. what they will with that. Yeah.

>> It is literally true. I'm on the cusp of. it in this self-defense case that I. have, and it's like it it feels so. jarring to me, but I I've never I've. never tried a case in 29 years truly to. the bench. And to be clear, I'm not. making any accusations about this judge. or any judge whatsoever. It's just I. know people will have that question. That's all. That's as we talked about. >> And of course, and I I'm going to say. this. I mean, we want the system to work. in that way, right? We we want, of. course, judges to to, you know, be able. to sort of win a, you know, narrow the. evidence and understand the law and. apply it appropriately. And And one.

would say, "Well, that's why you try it. to the court and not to a jury.". But I think you raise a really good. point, right? That evidence is kept from. jurors, that judges know that that. evidence is there even if it's excluded. And And we're all humans, right? There's. that expression once once the bell is. rung, you can't unring it. Yeah. You. know, that's really that's that's. applicable in this situation. So, I want to go back to something. So, I mentioned that the appeals process. took, you know, has been going on for. several years. There's been different.

avenues. It can get a little confusing, but there was this other. attempt. So, there was our understanding. was another appeal was filed after. McKenzie Shirilla sought post-conviction. relief. Our understanding is it was. denied because she missed the filing. deadline. So, the court's decision came. down this past March and it read, quote, "During that direct appeal, the trial. transcripts were filed on October 23rd, 2023. Transcripts from the juvenile. court bindover proceedings were filed. later on December 15th, 2023. On October. 24th, 2024, Sherrill filed a petition.

for post-conviction relief. In the. direct appeal, the clerk docketed the. criminal trial transcripts as filed on. October 24th, 2023. The trial court. dismissed the petition as time-barred on. May 1st, 2025, concluding it was filed 1. day past the 365-day. jurisdictional deadline." And the court. then explains, quote, "The trial. transcript trigger. She contends that. the trial court erred when it concluded. that the petition to vacate or set aside.

convictions were untimely. Sherrill. argues the 365-day clock did not begin. until December 15th, 2023, when the. juvenile bindover's transcripts were. filed. The state, conversely, maintains. that the clock was triggered on October. 24th, 2023, the date the clerk noted on. the docket that the trial transcripts. from the criminal trial were filed. The. state argues that a trial is a. proceeding to determine guilt or. innocence and therefore a juvenile. probable cause hearing does not fall. under the statutory definition of a.

trial." So, Diane, that's very. confusing. Although to say, I mean, I I. I I think I think her legal team tried. to argue that it was, you know, 2024 was. a leap year, maybe there's an exception, but talk to me about why this is so. important, this deadline, how it gets. you into the right court, you know, what. how it could affect post-conviction. relief. Like, what what what should we. be knowing about this? I think there's some irony here, if I. can, cuz the issue of normally raised in. post-conviction is ineffective. assistance of counsel of the of the. trial lawyer.

Um, and here's the truth, you know, there's those of us that try cases and. those of us that do appellate work and. we're usually not the same, you know, kind of body of lawyers. And if you're. an appellate lawyer, like the calendar. and counting the days, like that should. be your wheelhouse. Um and so I'll just say, you know what? They missed a deadline. Um I actually. went down the rabbit hole in their. argument on on uh the briefing and why. they didn't miss the deadline, and um. and really it was just a calculation. error. They just missed it. Um and you know, when you miss it, you. miss it. I mean, it is a hard and fast.

rule, and there's no ability to do a. motion to extend, or you know, etc. So, she doesn't have any potential. post-conviction relief. Mhm. After the appeals court denied the. appeal, the Shrillas took the case, our. understanding, to the state Supreme. Court. I think this was like their. second time doing so. They had earlier. appealed to the court, the judges. declined to review the case. There is. this latest request for review, and this. is where Mackenzie Shrilla's defense. they brought up another issue that they. had with her case, and it says, quote,

"The primary issue at trial concerned. Shrilla's intent. In support of its. theory, the state introduced testimony. and evidence suggesting that Shrilla was. motivated by her rocky and tumultuous. relationship with DR. To that end, the. state elicited testimony about the July. 17th incident, as well as testimony from. DR's relatives about Shrilla and DR's. sometimes tumultuous relationship. Apart. from these prior unrelated incidents, however, the state failed to introduce. any evidence suggesting that Shrilla. harbored animosity or ill will towards.

DR at the time of the accident that one. could reasonably conclude that she. purposely crashed the vehicle with the. of killing DR and DF. To the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly established. that Shrilla and DR were getting along. well and appeared to be in love in the. days and hours leading up to the. incident. Now, police interviews with. teens who knew Shrilla and Dominic, they. reveal a little bit more about the. relationship. Kenzie, I know from a lot. of people telling me, and even her. closest friends, that Kenzie and Dom used to fight all.

the time. Okay. Um and she used to road rage all. the time. I remember someone told me that she. dropped um, off on the highway. because she got in a fight. So, she was she was just known for being. that kind of girl in high school and as. well out of high school. And her issues? Yeah, they called her baby Kush. Yeah, what's that? Just cuz she smoked. so much weed? >> weed and there's pictures on her. Instagram, but I'm sure she took it down.

now. Yeah, we have those. >> smoking weed. Yeah, we have those. Um, so she road raged, even kicked him. out on the highway once? Yeah. She he just she just drove him crazy and. we just don't know how he dealt with it. Was anything. suspicious about their behavior? >> Not at all. Not at all. They seemed. completely normal. Now, Diane, here's. here's where I'm looking at this. I'm. curious your thoughts. There is a. difference between intent and motive,

right? Like, if you you can establish. like, you don't even have to establish. the why of why she, you know, drove the. car at 100 mph. If you can say it would. never broke, she wasn't under. intoxication, that's all you need for. intent. Like, are they are they kind of. mixing a little bit between intent and. motive or am I wrong? You're you're spot on. And in fact, you. know, the state has to prove the. elements of each offense beyond a. reasonable doubt. And in no, you know, no no statute in Ohio is motive an.

element. So, in their argument is that. that motive piece. Well, it's not an. element of any of the offenses for which. she's charged. So, it's totally. irrelevant. Um, and I think you've. nailed it with the intent, right? The. speed, the lack of breaking. There were. also, as you said, um, some some friends. that testified that certainly um, you. know, gave gave evidence that there was. real friction in the relationship. I. also think just Jesse, if you and I are. in a relationship hypothetically and one. of us is recording our arguments, that. that that also says, you know, there are.

issues there so much so that I'm. recording it an an argument with us. There's the word intent, which came up. in the documentary. I don't know if you. saw this, but at the end, so she's. accused of speaking to her lawyer at the. end of the interview, and she goes back. and she goes, I I I really want to be. big on the no intent, the no intent. You. know, she said that. That was very key, right? And by the way, just a few days. ago on May 16th, the state filed its own. memorandum arguing that there's no need. for the state's highest court to take up. the case. We haven't got word on the. Supreme Court. Um but when I think about.

that, her saying that in the. documentary, I go back to my initial. question. Does that affect what the. Supreme Court may do here? Her saying. and I don't know. I mean, there's been. mixed feelings about the documentary, but you tell me, her really stressing. the no intent in the documentary, can. that. be a factor? I think it goes back to what we're. talking about just a few minutes ago of. like, you know, do do judges really set. aside, right? Like, you know, things. that they should under the law. And.

here's the thing, there's no question. that if there's a real potential that. one of the Supreme Court justices that's. going to hear. or rather read the briefing or their law. clerks, right? Who are the ones who are. deciding whether to take a case or not. ultimately or certainly are the ones. writing the opinions. Uh they'll see the. news, right? The documentary's all over. And so I just think like there is that. human element of, you know, one of the. law clerks for a Supreme Court uh. justice could well you know, hear and. and know about the case just from the. media perspective, which. given the feedback on the documentary, I.

think is not helpful to her. And Jesse, that comment at the end, and I did see. the clip. I mean, it comes across as so. manufactured and not authentic when she. says that about intent. I mean, it's it. was a little tragic. Goes back to the question was it. advisable to, you know, do that. Uh. look, I I I wanted your perspective on. something else. So, in the meantime, you. have the families of Dom and Devion. They're They're dealing with their own. thoughts, their own feelings surrounding. the appeals, the drama that's associated. with this documentary. I had a chance to. speak with uh Christine Russo, uh.

Dominic's older sister. She started her. own podcast. It's called Big Sister. Unhinged. This was in part to help her. just process everything that's happened. Um but she said that the love and. support the family is receiving means. the world to her. My family is very. thankful for sticking up for Dom. Like. it's just been overall. a better experience. And the only other. option that I had was to sit back. and watch everybody else online talk. about my brother and talk out the side.

of their neck, act like they know facts. or, you know, that they're all medical. experts or mechanical experts. And, you know, it was either sit back and. watch the internet run wild um with. misinformation or. do this. So, did you watch the whole documentary? Did you sit through the whole Did you. watch all of it? I I got to preview it. They flew in the. producers flew in from um. uh the UK in January. And I previewed it.

then. Um helped make some edits. They took out. some things that were not nice things. that were said about my brother um from. certain people. um. in the cast. And. uh but since it's been out as of last. Friday, I attempted to watch it for a. minute or two and I can't get further. than that. I just I don't want to see. it. I'm going to try not to get sad, but. So, the only I try not to cry and get. upset, especially in these interviews, but I had one with um Jumpsuit Pablo. Um.

it was like a week ago. And like the. only time that I got upset, I went to. say. um he had told me in the calls that like. she just doesn't show any remorse. And. And my thought was, "Oh my god, she. doesn't care about my brother at all. She doesn't feel bad. She doesn't think. about him." And to me, it's like he died. like she didn't even love him. You know. what I'm saying? He died for no reason, and that really just that. pulls my. heart out like that she just doesn't. care. You know what I'm saying? Like there's. no Yeah. anymore since since she was.

tried and convicted and sentenced, it's. never in in all her calls or her. actions. I I haven't gotten a letter of I miss. like nothing. You would have thought that she uh. missed him. You know, but he's not. talked about that she doesn't care. whatsoever. So, that really it makes me. feel like he died um for no reason. Now, we've learned that Christine launched a. petition. It's to create what's called. Dom's Law. So, a law to change the. current Son of Sam laws. And part of the.

petition reads, "Son of Sam laws were. first created in the late 1970s after. public outrage that serial killer David. Berkowitz could profit from his crimes. At the time, lawmakers were primarily. concerned about book deals, movie. rights, and interviews, and paid media. contracts. Today, criminals are able to. profit long before a book or movie deal. is ever signed. For notoriety-seeking. offenders, attention itself is the. ultimate currency. Convicted violent. offenders can easily convert public. attention into paid clicks, live-stream.

gifts, merchandise, paid appearances, and crowdfunding, often hiding these. profits behind family members, fan. pages, LLCs, or other loopholes. Our. current laws are outdated because they. were written long before TikTok, YouTube. YouTube, Instagram, podcasts, and. affiliate links were even thought about. This petition calls on lawmakers to. create a modern, constitutionally sound. law that prevents convicted violent. offenders, especially those convicted of. homicide or crimes causing serious. bodily injury, from turning crime-based.

notoriety into personal profit, perks, business opportunities, or indirect. financial gain. Now, we're going to put. a link to that petition in our show. notes if you guys are interested in. learning more. But, Diane, what do you. think about that? Well, I it's just inherently um I think. we've seen a lot of bad law created as a. reaction of of certain high-profile. cases. And and here's my response to. this one in particular or it's just that. there's a lot of innocent people that. are actually convicted of crimes. And if.

even if there's not a lot, some viewer. thinks there are innocent individuals. that are convicted of serious violent. crimes. And for them to not be able to. use social media and to use other. platforms to either outsource and pay. for the legal defense that actually is. the only way or mechanism they might. actually be exonerated. It it just is, you know, it strikes me in a way, right? And also I will just say, Jesse, this is. the world we live in. Whether you hate. it or love it, like this is the world we. live in and it's consumer-based. And the. only way that people can make money, you.

know, that have been convicted for. crimes is because there is a receptive. audience for it. Um and certainly you. can't control that. But I think really. can't be underscored that there are. people, individuals, that are certainly. and have sought relief from being able. to, you know, get funding for litigation. and then have been, you know, found to. be actually innocent. So, to close that. loophole and and deny them that. opportunity I think would be would be. gross. for taking the time to break it. down with me. Uh really really.

interesting stuff. Thank you. Thanks for having me. And that's all we. have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining. us and as always, please subscribe on. YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also check us out on NBC's. Peacock as well. If you want to follow. me, X, [music] Instagram. My NewsNation. show, Jesse Weber LIVE, Monday through. Friday, 11:00 a.m. Eastern. >> [music]. >> See you next time, everybody.