Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Twisted New Court Battle in Mackenzie Shirilla Murder Case

Episode Date: May 29, 2026

When Mackenzie Shirilla was sentenced to life in prison for intentionally crashing her car at 100 mph and killing her boyfriend, Dominic Russo, and friend, Davion Flanagan, in Strongsville, Ohio, many thought the case was over. Now, following her first on-camera interview in the viral Netflix documentary "The Crash," her legal team is begging the Ohio Supreme Court for a new trial over a missed deadline blamed on a leap year. Angenette Levy breaks down the high-stakes legal argument in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Diane MenasheCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Mackenzie Shirilla is facing a life sentence for the murders of her boyfriend and his friend. Now, after speaking on camera for the first time in the Netflix documentary The Crash, her lawyers are begging the Ohio Supreme Court to give her a new shot. I'll take you inside their argument and whether or not the new doc that's got everyone talking could play a role in all of this. I'm Ann Janette Levy and this is Crime Fix. Mackenzie Sherilla is making a big play, a Hail Mary, really. The convicted double murderer is asking Ohio Supreme Court to hear her appeal. This, after a lower court ruled, her attorney dropped the ball on her appeal, literally filing a day late. And with all of this buzz surrounding the Netflix documentary The Crash, McKenzie may think she has a shot. I am not so sure. I'll dig into the legal part of this shortly, but first, let's look at how we got to this point. It was July 30th, 2022.

Mackenzie and her boyfriend, Dominic Russo, went to a graduation party, then to a friend's house for a sleepover. Dominic's friend, Davian Flanagan, was also there. The three left in McKenzie's Toyota Camry, and McKenzie was behind the wheel. They were driving down the road. It was around 5.30 a.m. and then this. Radio. The car is splitting, too. radio there's an occupant inside send us a squad now we got bust the window out send us some more units

any more units to progress now now this is not a fresh accident either she's been here for a while hence in here no one's moving oh my god oh my god times three got three occupants No one's conscious. No one's breathing. Fuss that window out. Rookie. Oh my god, dude. Dave, what they tell you? Shoes light-flighted here. Yeah, I wouldn't know that. Okay. No. What else was there? You want to sit down. Progress in Alameda,

car into a building, two are deceased in the vehicle. Daughter's driving. There's one that we don't know. His name's Jacob. Does anyone know Jacob? Don? Tom? Guys. I know. We've been doing with this.

Your daughter's okay. She's talking. She's talking to us. All right. I got to talk to you one more time. Let's let you know where we stand is a police department, okay? Where we stand today, okay? Full transparency here. There's drugs in the car. She had a bag of mushrooms on her and a scale. Full transparency, guys. I'm sorry, ripping the band, you know, okay? Drugs in the car. It's a mess, okay? We're not going to do anything with the blood jar or anything here, but it will probably be subpoenaed just so you guys know. they're going to subpoena for a blood draw for the sample. Okay.

Since she's unconscious, I really will, you guys could talk. If she wakes up, we need a name of that passenger. Okay? We don't. All I know is his name is Jacob. She was driving. Yeah. She was driving.

One in the back seat. Jacob was in the front. Davey on in the back. You're the parent. I mean, you have the right to know. This is serious. What? And me and him were the first ones on scene, Discover.

In and out of consciousness. She had to be fully extracted from the vehicle. I have to. I know she has a severe leg injury. Like I said, she was speaking. She was speaking, okay? And she had her seatbelt on. Yes.

Yes, we had to cut it off to get her out. Stop. Yeah, it had to save her life. 100% saved your life. Oh, my God. I don't believe the others did. Oh my God. She got it out.

It was at Progress in Alameda. Like I said, they hit a building at a very high speed. She had it on her? She did not hit another vehicle. The girl were on her or like on a person or just on or did somebody else's? Because it be that she never used that person. What does that mean? They were on.

pocket. That's at least your words at this point, guys. Oh, yeah. All right. Well, I'm just trying to gather information. I'm an information gather. Yes. I'm just giving me what I know. Okay. That was the moment McKenzie Sherilla's car slammed into a brick wall at nearly 100 miles per hour. Two young men were killed. Sherilla survived. Prosecutors said she intentionally drove into that wall, killing Dominic Russo and their friend Davian Flanagan. Sherilla opted. for a bench trial, no jury, and the judge who heard her case found her guilty on two counts of murder and sentenced her. There's a very good likelihood, McKenzie, that you will spend the

rest of your life in prison. That won't be up to me. That will be up to the parole board, and that will be up to you to a great extent. I understand that the pain in this room wants me to impose the harshest sentence, but I don't believe that would be the appropriate sentence. because I do believe the McKenzie will not be out in 15 years. So she's sentenced on count two, the murder of Davy on 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. But now, Chirilla is fighting back.

Her legal team has taken her case to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing a text. technicality so small, it comes down to one day and a leap year. The filing is hitting the headlines just weeks after Netflix released the crash, her first on-camera interviews since this all happened. So what does the documentary have to do with the appeal? And could it actually hurt her case? Shurrilla has always maintained that this was an accident that she blacked out and her family pointed to a medical condition called Potts, but her lawyer never called a medical expert to testify about it, so that claim has never been substantiated in court. Now back to this new appeal. Shurillo's lawyers filed this appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court on April 27th. They're basically

asking the court to hear this, and the court has not decided whether or not they will. The whole thing comes down to a calendar. Here's why. Under Ohio law, a convicted defendant has 365 days after their trial transcript is filed to challenge their conviction. Sherella's trial transcript was filed on October 24, 2023. Her lawyers filed their post-conviction relief petition on October 24, 2024. That is 366 days later, one day past the deadline. So how did that happen? Her lawyers say they missed the deadline because they didn't account for 2024 being a leap year. February 29th, that extra day, they say, threw off their calculation. But here's the thing. The appeals court did not buy it. A judge wrote that Ohio law is clear. You have 365 days, not the one-year anniversary. A leap year does not change that. Now there's another layer to this appeal. Her legal team is also saying in this appeal that her lawyer did not investigate that medical condition pots, which can cause blackouts. They say if he had, she might have been acquitted.

There is medical evidence that McKenzie Sherilla suffered from a pre-existing medical condition that could have caused her to black out while driving. Now Sherilla is taking her case to the Ohio Supreme Court. Her lawyers argue that if the clock had started later, based on a different transcript, her filing would have been early, not late. Here's why that matters. Shurilla's case started in juvenile court. A judge there held a hearing to decide whether to move her to adult court. her lawyers say that judge should have never moved her case at all, and they made that the first issue in their direct appeal. But the transcript from that juvenile hearing was not filed until December 15, 2023, nearly two months after the trial transcript. Sherella's lawyers say the

365-day clock should have started on December 15th, not October 24th, and they point to something in the record to back themselves up. The juvenile transcript was cited repeatedly. by the defense, the prosecution's brief of appellee similarly cited the juvenile transcript, and the ensuing decision and the original appeal discussed the evidence presented at the bind over hearing, saying both sides used it. So her lawyers argue it should count as the starting line. The appeals court said no. The law says trial transcript, not every transcript from every hearing. Now Sherilla's lawyers want the Ohio Supreme Court to settle the fight, and they have another argument too, even if she missed the deadline, they say the court should still hear her case because the

stakes are so high. The appeal puts it this way. When a petition provides substantial reason to believe that the defendant would be acquitted at a new trial, principles of equitable tolling may be exercised to excuse the late filing, which brings us to the Netflix documentary. In the crash, Shirilla finally speaks on camera for the first time, and she tries to explain what happened that night. She says, I remember turning on the street and then I'm waking up in the hospital the next day and my whole life is shattered. When asked about her relationship with Dominic, she says, we would have probably been married by now. It was rocky, but it was good. We were in love.

But here is the moment everyone is talking about at the very end of the documentary. The filmmakers reveal that her lawyer was in the room the entire time and you see her demeanor shift. She checks in with him, asks how she is. coming across. Then she turns back to the camera and says, I'm big on the no intent. There was no intent whatsoever there. So here's a question. Is the documentary part of the legal strategy? Does it help her case with the Supreme Court or could it actually hurt her? So to discuss all of this, I'd like to bring in Diane Manashy. She is a criminal defense attorney in Ohio. She has represented a number of high-profile clients. Diane, I know you've been following.

this the case. What are your thoughts on McKenzie Chirilla going to the Ohio Supreme Court and saying, hey, please take my appeal, hear my appeal. Yeah, well, I think the latest effort in April is, you know, their post-conviction petition was denied because they missed the deadline. And now they're, they're kind of, you know, asking the court to make an exception for them. And I think they have little to no shot in getting relief with respect to that. I mean, they just missed a deadline. It's as simple as that. They did miss the deadline by one day, which seems really absurd to me. I just, I can't believe that. I can't believe that you know your deadline is coming. You don't even file for an extension, and you file a day late. It's like, it's so like junior high. That's what's so shocking to me,

because you know your client is up against it and need your help. And then you come up with this, oh, but there's a leap year and all of this silliness. And it seems to me, from what the prosecutor is saying, that the statute is quite clear. You have 365 days. You have a year. It couldn't be more clear. And I think the other thing that makes it look, just, if you will, messing and last minute is some of the affidavits attached to the PC petition were notarized that same day of the filing. So this is clearly, you know, waiting to the last minute, the last hour. And to your point, you know, appellate attorneys, their whole job is literally to keep track of deadlines. I mean, that is the job of an appellate attorney to know when things are to be filed and you can't meet

filing deadlines, file motions for extension, and, you know, meet the deadline because the deadlines are just that. They're dead lines. Yeah. Right. But courts are often flexible. So I've seen a number of times in a number of cases where an attorney will go to an appeals court, to an appellate court, and say, can we have an extension of 30 days or 60 days? And they always grant those. It's pretty rare that they wouldn't give you an extension. Well, but I think the key there is going proactively before the deadline has passed, right? And I don't think that that's, I agree with you. I think that's true of appellate courts. I think that's true of trial courts. You know, in particular situations where you go to opposing counsel and say, you know, would

you be on board with an extension? And if I get an extra 14 days, I'm happy to give, you know, the government an extra 14 as well. And then go to the court. I couldn't agree more. But the key is that you have to do that proactively not once the deadline is passed. Another thing that is so shocking to me is the fact that I think McKenzie Sherilla, because of her desire to be a TikToker, because of her desire to be an influencer, all of this stuff. I really think she thought doing this Netflix documentary was going to help her cause. And I'm sure her attorneys thought, oh, we'll do this. You can do this.

And then I'll appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, which the Ohio Supreme Court has to actually say, yes, we'll hear it. I think with the current makeup of the court, they're going to be like, yeah, take it somewhere else. We're not interested. But I think they thought this would be helpful. And I don't think it is helpful because I don't think she looks good at all. You know, you have to assume that they thought it would be helpful because we clearly see at the end of the documentary that she's in the room with her defense attorney when she's doing the, you know, making the interview. But it is hard to imagine how they would think this is helpful, particularly because we can presume they'd spend a lot of time with her, you know, one-on-one before. She doesn't present well.

I mean, she just doesn't. And if we're to assume that she presented that way after, you know, being prepped, well, that's concerning as well. But I couldn't agree more. It's hard to understand the strategic play here. Any attorney that spends time with their client, you know, knows how they will present. And it's hard to imagine her attorneys thought she'd present well. Judge Rousseau basically said to her during sentencing,

you're more than likely going to be in prison for the rest of your life. I mean, she told her that. I mean, because she's eligible for parole in 2037, that's going to be her first go-around with the parole board. They're not going to, this is Ohio. We're not, they're not going to let her out on her first go-around. It would be very unlikely. And if she gets out on her second go-round, she would have to show some incredible strides that she has made. And I do a lot of parole work, you know, for high-level murder cases here in Ohio.

and I have to tell you that now another way that the documentary has hurt her is that the parole board will not only be made aware of the documentary, but most specifically is her lack of remorse. And here in Ohio, as the parole board is considering release, which will be for the first time after she serves 15 full years, they don't just look at her institutional record. You know, does she have conduct write-ups? You know, does she have institutional employment? But really, the parole board in Ohio is looking most notably at that remorse piece. and acceptance of responsibility. Now, although she certainly has a right to a fair trial and right to have a trial, I can tell you from my experience, you know, those that enter pleas and don't go to a trial,

the parole board always looks more favorably towards releasing that because they've accepted responsibility. But here we not only have someone that went to trial, but now we have someone that's been convicted and is, you know, is continuing the narrative that she is innocent. And even if that is true, I will just tell you, the parole board, reuse her lack of remorse and lack of acceptance of responsibility in this documentary against her. Another thing that I saw when the prosecutor, Prosecutor O'Malley up in Cuyahoga County, he wrote that the Supreme Court should not take this up. They should just ignore it. He said that a lot of the arguments that her defense attorney was making in their briefing were federal arguments for habeas relief

and things of that nature. Do you see them trying to go the habeas route? And would that be successful? You know, I think that they're, I mean, who knows what they'll do? I think they're going to do everything they possibly can at this point, particularly since the optics of her appellate counsel missed the deadline. So I can tell you, just from a representation standpoint, that attorney is going to keep trying to get in, if you will. But I think, you know, the best route was the direct appeal. They lost that. As we know, that's really where, if you have a chance, that's where it is. And so I think kind of, you know, as they move forward, they're going to be trying to

to seek relief, but the chance is only slim. They don't get greater as time moves on. No doubt, no doubt. Yeah. The cards are stacked against her, and it just seems like at every step, at every point, McKenzie Shrill makes a decision that makes it worse for her and not better. It does seem that way. And particularly lately, it seems like a serious.

of bad decisions have been made. Yeah. Yeah. And unfortunately, she's, she's, she's has counsel. So, you know, um, but that said, you know, sometimes client do what clients do what they want. You can certainly take them to water and you can't make them drink. And I understand that as well. Um, but, but yeah, she's made some bad decisions particularly as of late. No doubt. Well, Diane and Ashley, I really appreciate your time. Thank you so much. Thank you for having me. The Cuyahoga County prosecutor has filed an objection to McKenzie Sherilla's case being heard with the Ohio Supreme Court. They have asked the Ohio Supreme Court not to hear this case. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix.

I'm Ann Janette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.