Law&Crime Sidebar - Bombshell Ransom Note Leaves Sinister Clues on Nancy Guthrie’s Fate

Starting point is 00:00:00 McKenzie Sherella 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 rest of her life behind bars. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Yep, more bad news for convicted murderer McKenzie Shurilla.

Starting point is 00:00:27 The Supreme Court of Ohio has refused to do. to hear her appeal once again. I'm going to talk about why I say once again. Remember, she drove a car 100 miles per hour into a building killing the two passengers, her boyfriend, Dominic Russo and his friend Davy on Flanagan back on July 31st, 2022. She was found guilty by a judge in a judge in a judge in a judge 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.

Starting point is 00:01:03 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 7.08b4. 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.

Starting point is 00:01:48 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 interests. 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 a 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.

Starting point is 00:02:36 Okay. And let me start with the opening paragraph of her brief. It says, quote, McKenzie 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 McKenzie Shirilla suffered from a pre-existent. medical condition that could have caused her to black out while driving. But that evidence was only cursory referenced at trial because defense counsel, despite being aware of Ms. Shurillo's condition, did not adequately investigate this aspect

Starting point is 00:03:10 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. Posterol, orthostatic, tachycardia syndrome. Shira 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 Shurilla must have blacked out, which is why she drove off the road.

Starting point is 00:03:41 And yes, at trial, there was no official medical diagnosis that was presented, although Shrila'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. Shurilla's mother informed medical personnel that Shirilla had a history of pots, which can cause a patient to have an unusually elevated heart rate.

Starting point is 00:04:12 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 Shurilla's heart was normal. Now, on cross-examination, a doctor in this case, it says, Dr. Seng admitted that a blood oxygen level of 82 would be abnormally low for most people. Dr. Sang further admitted that a patient with POTS may experience dizziness or a headache. medical personnel evaluated Shira approximately two hours after the reported time of the crash,

Starting point is 00:04:51 a person who has suffered a seizure or a mini stroke could possibly have recovered within two hours. With respect to Shirilla's physical health, Natalie, this is her mom, has seen Shirilla 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 Chirilla was diagnosed with Pots in 2017, At the Cleveland Clinic, Natalie cannot remember the name of the doctor who made the diagnosis. Natalie took Sharilla to the doctor after Sharla fell to the kitchen floor on one occasion. The doctors made the diagnosis and gave Sharla salt tabs to treat the condition. Sharla would take the tablets or eat a salty food as needed.

Starting point is 00:05:32 Since the diagnosis, there have been a couple occasions where Sharla 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 Shillah apply for a driver's license twice since the POTS diagnosis was made and neither time disclosed the condition. Natalie testified that Chirilla had experienced the 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 Shirala to a doctor or limit Shirala's driving privileges. Well, Dr. Seng testified that it's possible that Chirilla 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, Shira denied having adverse

Starting point is 00:06:23 medical conditions when applying for a driver's 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 Chirilla 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 Shurrilla's brief, to the Supreme Court, because basically this is the argument that she makes. I had bad lawyers, ineffective assistance of counsel.

Starting point is 00:07:00 It's a 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. Shurrilla 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 8th District Court of Appeals agreed. They affirmed it. And she makes the argument, this appellate court made a mistake.

Starting point is 00:07:36 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, Shirilla could die in prison. That's why the stakes are so high. And Shirla's 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.

Starting point is 00:08:23 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

Starting point is 00:08:54 number of days after the trial transcript was filed in the direct appeal. So what's a 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

Starting point is 00:09:24 petition that a defense attorney failed to call an important witness at a pretrial 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 Shirilla's case? Well, basically, Shirilla 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, which she says,

Starting point is 00:10:04 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 one 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

Starting point is 00:10:55 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 court. 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 McKenzie Shurilla's right to the effective assistance of counsel

Starting point is 00:11:33 under the Sixth Amendment has been violated. Moreover, Mishorella'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 Mishirala's constitutional rights under such circumstances, particularly when there's a claim as here that Mekenzie Shurilla was actually innocent. The principle of equitable tolling has a place at the table.

Starting point is 00:12:02 Yeah, so she makes the argument she would have been acquitted if she had effective counsel. My opinion, that might be debatable because even if Potts had been more fully explored with experts, would that have resulted in an acquittal? 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?

Starting point is 00:12:26 I don't know it's so black and white. But okay, let's hear what the prosecution's response was. They say, quote, defendant appellant McKenzie Chirilla drove her vehicle a high rate of speed into a building, killing her boyfriend and another passenger. Her vehicle's data recorder showed that Chirilla drove more than 95 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone, with the accelerator pedal 100% depressed, never applying the brakes. Chirilla 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 Mekenzie Shurilla missed calendar the date that her petition for post-conviction relief was due. The trial transcripts were filed under direct appeal on October 23rd, 2023, triggered the 365-day statutory clock to file the petition.

Starting point is 00:13:12 She filed a petition on October 24, 24, which is the same day that many of her exhibits were notarized because 2024 was a leap year, Shurila's petition was late by one day. The trial court properly denied her petition as untimely, realizing the enormity of her error, Sherilla 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.

Starting point is 00:13:57 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 interests, 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 asked that this court declined to exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. So basically, they were arguing the trial transcript is about a trial, not an evidentiary hearing, not a probable cause hearing, a trial, a trial, guilt or innocence. Clear what it is. It's clear. Clear when the clock starts running. Shurilla, you're late. Too bad. And actually, I thought this was interesting because the prosecution says, Shurilla herself admitted that the trial transcript, right, what's the definition?

Starting point is 00:14:47 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 transcripts. 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 you're a detainee. is unlawful. And they make the argument that even if an equitable tolling exception existed,

Starting point is 00:15:31 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 Shurilla 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.

Starting point is 00:16:12 According to Cleveland.com, Shirilla had appealed her conviction. She argued that the prosecution didn't prove the key element of intent, but the 8th 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 Shillah 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

Starting point is 00:16:52 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've 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 Eighth Circuit position as well. You heard the prosecution describe it too. It's pretty accurate about how they decided it.

Starting point is 00:17:13 So look, what does it mean for Cheryl? 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 even doing the Netflix special, is it going to hurt her chances? Discussion for another day.

Starting point is 00:17:40 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 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 Instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time, everybody.

Law&Crime Sidebar - Bombshell Ransom Note Leaves Sinister Clues on Nancy Guthrie’s Fate

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.