Mackenzie Shirilla Smacked Down by the Court... Again

Mackenzie Shirilla was just handed. another loss. The Ohio Supreme Court. declined to hear her appeal of her. murder convictions. We're going to try. to get to the bottom of why this. happened and what it means for her. because she may now be looking at. spending the [music] rest of her life. behind bars. Welcome to Sidebar. presented by Law & Crime. I'm Jesse. [music] Weber. By the way, as you're watching this and. maybe you're into content creation, maybe [music] you're putting things out. on social media. Have you ever wondered. how we're able to share all of these.

clips so quickly on all these stories? Well, we use something called Opus Clip. Opus Clip is an all-in-one AI editor. that makes it so easy to cut, create, and upload videos across any platform. Through AI, Opus Clip generates B-roll, it reframes footage, and it even cleans. up audio. It is so easy. You just visit. opus.pro/. sidebar. You sign up, you upload, and in. minutes you'll have perfectly edited. clips ready to go for TikTok, Shorts, Reels. Opus Clip is really your one-stop. shop. Having a tool like Opus Clip means.

that our producers can get you viral. courtroom updates instantly. This is the. most powerful tool there is to share. ideas and edit like a pro. So, go to. opus.pro/. sidebar to get a free week and then 50%. off. Yep, more bad news for convicted. murderer Mackenzie Shirilla. The Supreme. Court of Ohio has refused to hear her. appeal once again. I'm going to talk. about why I say once again. Remember, she drove a car 100 mph into a building,

killing the two passengers, her. boyfriend Dominic Russo and his friend. Davion Flanagan back on July 31st, 2022. She was found guilty by a judge in a. bench trial. Remember, this wasn't in. front of a jury, it was in front of a. judge. She opted for that in front of a. bench trial. She was found 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, what has. happened now is that she tried to appeal. those convictions.

and the Supreme Court said no. That's. the interesting part I want to get into. And it's not like the Supreme Court here. gave a full multi-page written. explanation. No, rather, there was an. order that was signed by Chief Justice. Sharon Kennedy that stated, quote, upon. consideration of the jurisdictional. memoranda filed in this case, the court. declines to accept jurisdiction of the. appeal pursuant to rule 7.08. B 4. I looked up that rule, by the way, and it basically says the Ohio Supreme.

Court can either accept an appeal and. order briefing on an issue, they can. enter judgment on it immediately, or. they can decline to accept the appeal. And I looked up the Supreme Court of. Ohio and basically they hear appeals in. criminal cases that are usually about, quote, public or great general interest, so cases that are of public or great. general interest, or that involve. questions about the Ohio or the United. States Constitutions. So, as we try to. read into why the Supreme Court declined.

to hear her case and now seemingly she. might be left without any other options. right now as at least, although I'll. tell you maybe something that she can. do. It looks like she might just have to. serve out her two concurrent sentences. of 15 years to life in prison. So, I. want to go back into the records here. and it appears that Shirilla had filed a. notice of appeal to the Ohio Supreme. Court earlier this year. Then in a follow-up brief, she lays out. her arguments and that's what I want to. start with, okay? And let me start with. the opening paragraph of her brief. It.

says, quote, Mackenzie Shirilla, who was. 17 years old when the car she was. driving crashed into a wall at a speed. in excess of 80 miles per hour, is. serving a life sentence for murdering. her two passengers. There is medical. evidence that Mackenzie Shirilla. suffered from a preexisting medical. condition that could have caused her to. black out while driving. But that. evidence was only cursorily referenced. at trial because defense counsel, despite being aware of Miss Shirilla's. condition, did not adequately.

investigate this aspect of the case and. did not attempt to secure expert. testimony. So, look, this is the whole. POTS thing, right? The POTS defense, the. POTS explanation. POTS postural. orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. Shirilla has insisted that ever since. the beginning she has no memory. whatsoever of the crash or the minutes. leading up to it. That 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. And yes, at trial there was no. official medical diagnosis that was. presented. Although Shirilla's mom did. testify about it. In fact, to kind of. give you an idea about this, I want to. quickly lay out how a prior court viewed. this in a prior appellate argument. It. says, quote, "Shirilla points out that. her POTS condition may have led to a. medical issue that caused the accident. Or, she may have had some other medical. emergency like a heart attack or. seizure. Shirilla's mother informed. medical personnel that Shirilla had a. history of POTS, which can cause a.

patient to have an unusually elevated. heart rate. Medical personnel did not. note any cardiovascular, neurologic, joint, or muscle symptoms. No symptoms. related to sleep disturbances, anxiety, memory loss, disorientation, inattention, or depression were noted. And an electrocardiogram, which was. performed revealed the electrical. functions of Shirilla's heart was. normal. Now, on cross-examination, a. doctor in this case, it says, "Doctor. Sang admitted that a blood oxygen level. of 82 would be abnormally low for most.

people. Doctor Sang further admitted. that a patient with POTS may experience. dizziness or a headache. Medical. personnel evaluated Shirilla. approximately 2 hours after the reported. time of the crash. A person who has. suffered a seizure or a mini stroke. could possibly have recovered within 2. hours." With respect to Shrilla's. physical health, Natalie, this is her. mom, has seen Shrilla suffer symptoms. from POTS at least twice. Natalie. described her understanding that the. condition can cause low blood pressure. and an increased heart rate and can.

cause someone to lose consciousness. On. cross-examination, Natalie testified. that Shrilla was diagnosed with POTS in. 2017 at the Cleveland Clinic. Natalie. could not remember the name of the. doctor who made the diagnosis. Natalie. took Shrilla to the doctor after Shrilla. fell to the kitchen floor on one. occasion. The doctors made the diagnosis. and gave Shrilla salt tabs to treat the. condition. Shrilla would take the. tablets or eat a salty food as needed. Since the diagnosis, there have been a. couple of occasions where Shrilla would. feel herself feeling low in salt or. woozy and would sit down and eat some.

crackers or another salty food. Natalie. admitted that she helped Shrilla apply. for a driver's license twice since the. POTS diagnosis was made and neither time. disclosed the condition. Natalie. testified that Shrilla had experienced a. POTS episode a week or two before the. crash and reported that it was really. bad and it hadn't been that bad in a. long time and she was scared it was. going to get worse. Natalie admitted. that she did not take Shrilla to a. doctor or limit Shrilla's driving. privileges. Well, Dr. Sang testified.

that it's possible that Shrilla could. have suffered a medical emergency like a. seizure or mini stroke while still. appearing normal in the medical. examination. Other evidence makes this. potential explanation seem unreasonable. For example, Shrilla denied having. adverse medical conditions when applying. license both before and after the crash. Moreover, someone manually moved the. gear shift back into drive after it was. moved to neutral in the seconds before. the crash. There was no evidence. presented that any medical condition.

could have caused Shrilla to. simultaneously lose the ability to take. her foot off the accelerator or hit the. brakes while also intentionally. manipulating the gear shift. That's the. problem with POTS. And I want to go back. now to Sherrills brief to the Supreme. Court because basically this is the. argument that she makes. I had bad lawyers. Ineffective. assistance of counsel. It's the Sixth. Amendment, right? Now, this is where it. gets a little procedural. It gets a. little specific, but this is the main. theme here and it's important. The main. issue about taking this to the Supreme.

Court is about whether or not she is. bringing this post-conviction relief. petition too late. Sherrills argues that. right now the only legal way she can. bring an ineffective assistance of. counsel claim is through this specific. petition. And the trial court said, "Look, you filed it out of time." The. Eighth District Court of Appeals agreed. They affirmed it. And she makes the. argument this appellate court made a. mistake. They mistakenly identified the.

deadline by which I can bring this. relief petition. And she says the. problem is that this post-conviction. relief statute that sets the deadline. when you can file it it's not clear. It's ambiguous. And because of this. mistake Sherrills could die in prison. That's why the stakes are so high. And. Sherrills team argues it's all about. what quote trial transcript means. because that's what's used to measure. the time by which this petition has to. be filed. Under the law apparently it. has to be 365 days after the filing of.

the trial transcript that you can file. this post-conviction relief petition. So, this is what she gets into. And she. argues that a post-conviction petition. is important because it examines whether. a defendant's constitutional rights were. violated. It's larger. It's not just. looking at the trial record. It's. looking beyond that. And she says, "This. is all about determining the deadline. for when she could file." Quote, "Competent post-conviction counsel must. understand the trial court's record. before deciding what issues, if any, can.

be raised in a post-conviction relief. petition. Understanding the record means. being familiar with the court. proceedings that led to conviction, usually by reading the pertinent. transcripts. For that reason, the. deadline for filing a post-conviction. relief petition is measured by the. number of days after the trial. transcript was filed in the direct. appeal. So, what's trial transcript? What's the definition? She makes the. argument that a trial transcript, she. says this has been a question that's. fought in the courts for a long time, there's ambiguity, it's not clear, and. she goes through how a bunch of.

different courts look at it and define. I'm not going to bore you with all that. Here's the interesting way she looks at. it. She says, "I think it's more broad. than just looking at the actual trial.". She says, "Let's say you have a. defendant who is making an argument, is. making a challenge in a petition that a. defense attorney failed to call an. important witness at a pre-trial. hearing, let's say an evidence. suppression hearing. So, this is before. trial. And then the defendant ends up. pleading no contest to the charge. The. only transcript that's available is from. that suppression hearing. There's no.

trial. Are you saying there's no trial. transcript? No, is that fair? Does that. mean you can't pursue a relief petition. if your attorney made a big mistake, you're out of luck? So, what happened in. Shrilla's case? Well, basically Shrilla. had first appealed her case in September. of 2023, and her lawyer requested all. the court records. The main trial court. records, they were filed on October. 24th, 2023. However, there was a. separate, what she says crucial record, important record, from her juvenile. court hearing, and that was omitted. It.

had to be tracked down later. And by. law, again, I said she had 365 days to. file her next petition. Her new lawyers. filed it on October 24th, 2024. So, if. the 365-day clock started when the main. trial records, the trial transcript was. filed, they were exactly 366. days late, so 1 day late. But, she's. making the argument, no, the clock. started when the juvenile court records.

were finally filed. And if that's the. case, and we start the clock at that. point, I'm on time. Now, the trial. court, the 8th District Court of. Appeals, they both rejected her. petition. They rejected her arguments. They ruled that the clock starts early, that the official 365-day countdown. begins the moment the main trial. transcript is filed, that the juvenile. records don't count. Her argument is. that the juvenile court hearing is just. so important to her case. It's part of. the appeal. It's part of the appellate. record. It's necessary for her appeal. It was necessary for her counsel to.

review everything, which is why the. deadline needs to be adjusted. And it. says, quote, "At the end of the day, the. United States Supreme Court in Young v. Reagan, and this court in Calhoun, have. made it clear that constitutional due. process under the 14th Amendment and. Article 1, Section 16 of the Ohio. Constitution are about ensuring adequate. relief for prisoners whose. constitutional rights have been. violated, and Mackenzie Shirilla's right. to the effective assistance of counsel. under the Sixth Amendment has been. violated. Moreover, Ms. Shirilla's Sixth. Amendment right to the effective.

assistance of counsel is particularly. violated. Whereas here, the petition for. post-conviction relief demonstrates that. she would have been acquitted had trial. counsel been effective. Accordingly, each of these propositions is grounded. in Ms. Shirilla's constitutional rights. under said circumstances, particularly. when there's a claim as here that. Mackenzie Shirilla was actually. innocent, the principle of equitable. tolling has a place at the table." Yeah, so she makes the argument she would have. been acquitted if she had effective. counsel.

My opinion, that might be because even. if Potts had been more fully explored. with experts, would that have resulted. in an acquittal? I I can't say for sure. You saw this before. I mentioned it. before. The physical evidence, the. testimonial evidence, the scientific. evidence, the medical evidence, wouldn't. that suggest otherwise? You know, I don't know if it's so black. and white. But okay, let's hear what the. prosecution's response was. They say, quote, "Defendant-appellant Mackenzie. Shirilla drove her vehicle a high rate. of speed into a building, killing her. boyfriend and another passenger. Her.

vehicle's data recorder showed that. Shirilla drove more than 95 mph in a 35. mph zone with the accelerator pedal 100%. depressed, never applying the brakes. Shirilla maintained control of the. vehicle as it maneuvered a large curve. in the road, never veering off the road. She also previously threatened to crash. her vehicle while her boyfriend was. inside it. Defendant-appellant Mackenzie. Shirilla miscalendared the date that her. petition for post-conviction relief was. due. The trial transcripts were filed in. her direct appeal on October 23rd, 2023, triggered the 365-day statutory clock to.

file the petition. She filed the. petition on October 24th, 2024, which is. the same day that many of her exhibits. were notarized. Because 2024 was a leap. year, Shirilla's petition was late by 1. day. The trial court properly denied her. petition as untimely. Realizing the. enormity of her error, Shirilla argued. on appeal that the 365-day clock did not. start until transcript of a probable. cause hearing in the juvenile court was. filed in the direct appeal on December. 15th, 2023. The 8th District Court of.

Appeals unanimously and correctly. rejected this argument. It noted that. the statutory phrase trial transcript. customarily refers to the record of the. adjudicatory proceeding in which guilt. was determined and held that a juvenile. probable cause hearing is not a trial. And then they say the 8th District. distinguished Shirilla from another. case, this Baker case, a case in which. there was no trial transcript existed. because the defendant pleaded guilty. This case fails to present an issue of.

public or great general interest, which. we talked about before. It concerns only. the untimely filing of a post-conviction. petition due to the mistake of counsel. For these reasons, the state. respectfully asks that this court. decline to exercise jurisdiction over. this appeal. So basically, they are. arguing the trial transcript is about a. trial, not an evidentiary hearing, not a. probable cause hearing, a trial. a A. trial, guilt or innocence. Clear what it. is. It's clear. Clear when the clock. starts running. Shirilla, you're late.

Too bad. And actually, I thought this. was interesting because the prosecution. says Shirilla herself admitted that the. trial transcript, right? What's the. definition? She admitted in her filing. the trial transcripts were filed October. 23rd, 2023. So, she's defining what it. is. She's saying this is a trial. transcript, distinguishing it from the. juvenile court hearing transcripts. And. they argue that her constitutional. violations claims they're forfeited. because they weren't raised earlier. They say it in their brief. I know it. may seem harsh to deny a petition to a.

defendant that's filed one day late, but. those are the rules. The rules are the. rules. And they make the argument that. every case she cites for tolling, that. was a federal case involving a. completely unrelated habeas corpus. petition. That's a very different one. Basically, it's about whether your. detention is unlawful. And they make the argument that even if. an equitable tolling exception existed, Shirilla failed to establish that that. exception applied. That her proposition. of claims that there's a quote. substantial reason to believe that if.

her petition was granted, that she would. be acquitted. But Shirilla fails to cite. or even discuss any of the trial. evidence or the evidence attached to her. petition. So, those were the arguments. And the Supreme Court of Ohio refused to. hear their case. Not necessarily saying they sided with. the prosecution. I mean, they didn't. admit it, but seems that could be very. well what happened. Seems very likely. because that's what the prosecution. asked for, right? The prosecution asked. the Supreme Court to decline this. appeal. And by the way, we believe this.

is the second time the Ohio Supreme. Court has refused to hear her case. According to cleveland.com, Shirilla had. appealed her conviction. She argued that. the prosecution didn't prove the key. element of intent, but the Eighth. District Court of Appeals upheld her. conviction, and the Supreme Court. declined to hear the case that time, too. So, what we're talking about here. is different. It's a post-conviction. relief. It's a little bit different than. a standard appeal. It's about alleged. constitutional violations. But again, the Supreme Court of Ohio declined to. hear her case. And that is interesting,

by the way, because when Shrilla made. her first on-camera interview from. behind bars in a documentary on Netflix. called The Crash, she said, quote, "I'm. big on the no intent. There was no. intent whatsoever there. I have. excessive amounts of remorse for. Dominic, Davion, both of their families. This was not intentional, and I will do. everything I can to prove that to the. world and the families, and that's it.". And I got to say, this is not surprising. from the court. It appears to be kind of. rather straightforward under the law. what it says. And you know, I read. through the 8th Circuit position as.

well. You heard the prosecution describe. it, too. It's pretty accurate about how. they decided it. So, look, what does it. mean for Shrilla? It means she's out of. options. It means unless there's some. newly discovered evidence that proves. she didn't do this, that proves she's. completely innocent, that changes the. whole game, I think her only option now. is a chance at parole in 2037. Although. you do wonder whether her alleged. reported behavior in prison and [music]. even doing the Netflix special, is it. going to hurt her chances? Discussion.

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