Mackenzie Shirilla Update: Was Her Bench Trial Was A Mistake?

Mackenzie Shirilla isn’t going anywhere for now but an appeal might happen. For now, she remains locked up for the high-speed crash that killed her boyfriend, Dominic Russo, and their friend, 19-year-old Davion Flanagan.

Recently, experts debated what the defense might do if the case gets a new hearing. Read on for more details.

Juvenile In A Bench Trial

Mackenzie was only 17 when the fatal wreck happened, and she ended up tried before a judge. It’s called a bench trial because there is no jury.

Well, the judge decided she deliberately drove into a brick wall with intent. So, currently Shirilla serves two life sentences and might only get parole after 15 years.

Netflix & The Prosecution

The prosecution oriented their facts as a willful brat who deliberately drove at high speed, ramped a curb and demolished a business sign before hitting the brick wall.

However, a new show on Netflix revealed a few other parts of the story. That’s why interest in a possible reduction of her original sentence interests folks at the moment.

If you don’t know, her lawyer filed for an appeal but delivered it one day late due to a calendar issue and that revolved around whether it was a leap year or not.

It should be noted that her original murder conviction survived the main appeal process, and higher courts didn’t overturn the ruling. Current legal efforts seem like limited attempts at post-conviction relief rather than a full successful appeal.

Possible Appeal Arguments

This week, Jesse Weber followed up about it on his SideBar segment on Law&Crime Network. As his guest, he chose criminal defense attorney Diane Menashe to break down some possible appellate arguments.

Jesse noted that true crime aficionados who watched the Netflix show, “The Crash” noticed the attorney present in an interview.

He suggested that “giving an interview is just a really bad bad idea because anything she says could be used against her in the appellate arguments or in a future trial.”

Juvenile Hearing

Another subject went deeply into in the aspect of Mackenzie being tried outside of the juvenile process.

Well, Menashe clarified that under Ohio law, murder charges trigger an automatic transfer to adult court.

So, she noted that the prosecution only needs to establish basic probable cause at that early stage, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Original Evidence

Next, the discussion moved into the area of constitutional rights which might be a way forward.

Apparently, strong evidence came when the black box showed no attempt to slow the car. Menashe felt that it seemed huge in the decision the judge made.

Menashe also mentioned that in the original trial, there seemed to be a lack of proof that Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) might have caused Mackenzie Shirilla to pass out briefly.

A Toxic History

The appeals take aim at the toxic relationship history allowed into the courtroom. If you don’t know, it included recordings of arguments and testimony that Mackenzie previously threatened to wreck her car with Dominic in it.

While defense lawyers usually fight to keep that sort of damaging history away from a case, Menashe explained that the evidence fitted a legal exception because it proved an “absence of mistake or accident.”

Furthermore, because a judge ran the trial instead of a jury, legal experts assume a trained professional knows how to look at prior bad acts objectively without becoming unfairly biased.

A Technical Case

It’s a very technical case overall, and true crime followers might find it extremely complex. The bottom line is the puzzlement over why the original trial wasn’t held before a jury.

Jesse argued that it’s possible a judge knows everything about the evidence. That’s very different from a jury.

Menashe said she’d never tried a case through the bench. So, it seems that perhaps Shirilla’s defense might argue about that.

After all, was the judge able to suddenly forget evidence while deciding with an outcome?

Viewers React

Cutting through the complexity, it seems that defense arguments don’t move onlookers. One viewer wrote, “Do not release her….those boys deserve her to be held accountable.”

Here are a few more responses from the discussion area:

• Enough already. Ignore her, that will be the worst punishment ever.
• Why should she get release when 2 young boys will never be released from death[?]
• She needs to stay indefinitely in prison. She has no remorse. She killed 2 men, deliberately.

What are your thoughts? Do you hope that Mackenzie Shirilla gets a chance for freedom sooner than the original sentence? Or, do you believe the judge made the right decision without a jury?

Let us know in the comments below, and remember to come back here often for all your true crime news and updates. Remember, we also have a crime channel on TikTok that you can follow.