Law&Crime Sidebar - Mackenzie Shirilla Begs for Prison Release

Episode Date: May 26, 2026

Mackenzie Shirilla, the Ohio teenager convicted of intentionally driving her car into a brick wall in Strongsville and killing her boyfriend, Dominic Russo, and their friend, Davion Flanagan, has filed multiple appeals. Despite her insistence of innocence in the new Netflix documentary "The Crash," courts have continuously shot down her defense team's arguments regarding missing deadlines and trial evidence. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber sits down with powerhouse criminal defense attorney Diane Menashe to break down Shirilla's legal strategy and whether she has any chance left at the Ohio Supreme Court.Petition: https://www.change.org/p/dom-s-law-victims-before-influencers-modernize-son-of-sam-laws?recruiter=17237716&recruited_by_id=5757cf30-e8a5-012f-1742-4040b91ba155&share_id=JDVQm5Tx5N Purchase John Morgan's new book now on Amazon by going to www.forthepeople.com/lifeisluckHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY 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/lawandcrimeTwitter: 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.

Life shouldn't be like this. Dom and Davian 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 served in her sentence at the Women's Reformatory out in Ohio, while her family 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 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 Shurilla's appeal arguments. And what we can expect next, welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. Everybody loves a self-made 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 and Morgan gets real about the role that Luck plays in success. 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 firm, Morgan shares the moments that changed everything. It's a how-to book to approach life, luck, and ultimately success. This isn't another billionaire memoir full of cheesy advice. It's honest, blunt, and pack with lessons on turning good luck and bad luck into something bigger.

I hope people read it. I hope people appreciate it. By Life is Luck, now on Amazon at for the people.com slash life is luck. When a judge sentenced killer, McKenzie Sherilla, to prison in 2023, the teenager appeared stunt. She 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. have served. A 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

McKenzie 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 Davian Flanagan were killed. Prosecutions 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 break. This is according to investigative reports, sailing over a curb through a business sign and into a brick wall. And Shriela 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 feigning. They claim Shula must have blacked out, which is why she drove off the road. Shula'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 Chirilla actually has the condition. At least one former inmate who claimed to have interacted with Chirilla behind Barr said she never noticed any medical problems like this. There was evidence of drug use found at the scene, right, the marijuana vapin, the mushrooms, but toxicology testing on Chirilla 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, Shira 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 Shirla and her family have continued to profess her her innocence, including in her first on-camera interview in a new documentary on Netflix called The Crash. And Shirilla told the documentaries producers, I'm not a monster. I'm not saying I'm innocent. It was a driver of a tragedy, but I'm not a murderer. And when asked about her

relationship with Dominic, 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 McKenzie, Shurilla, and Dominic were in a good place relationship-wise, that is an issue that was a part of Shillah's appeals. And so to talk about our 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 Manashi. 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 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 things, thing that was noted is at the end of the documentary, it seems her attorney was in the room with her, was with McKenzie 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. I mean, the optics are just so bad. And particularly, as you said, while she's appealing her case and

trying to find relief in some way, certainly giving an interview, it's just a really bad, bad idea. Because anything she says could be used against her in the appellate 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 a new trial. Everything she's saying could be used against her. 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. I want to go back to how this could also affect her moving forward because after Cheryl 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 McKenzie Sherald's arguments to be strong enough for a reversal. And just to go through some of this and get your insight on it. 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 Shirilla purposely and or knowingly caused the deaths of DR and D.F. 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. Sherilla 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 Shirilla. 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 Shirilla that the state failed to meet this burden. Now, Diane, 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 a right. I will say, though, in Ohio, murder and aggravated murder are mandatory bindover 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. The judge in those instances in juvenile court, that hearing is literally just the four corners of, do they have probable cause?

And I think we're just really good to remind everyone. And certainly that's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. 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, because it's kind of related, the second assignment of error. The state failed to introduce sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions in violation of Shillah'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, And 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 all the other felonious assaults, etc. So I think really what they're doing in that argument, Jesse, is they're trying to tee up a constitutional issue because 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 the idea is that if 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 direct appeal level, The hope 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 fired her to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Chirilla crashed the vehicle purposely intending to kill Flanagan and Russo. We therefore overrule Chirilla'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 breaking, it was, you know, pretty strong. And I think I think between the black box, right, which is the accelerator, certainly the turn of the vehicle, which is, you know, that footage and the accelerator in, I think not just the accelerator, but critically never breaking, 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 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 know they raised that pot's issue, but as I read it, you know, they pulled her B&V record. 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 break.

This next one's interesting. It's a next alleged error put forward by the defense. Shurrilla's convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court wrote reversal on 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 conversation we're having. My other question would be like what's an example of where that would work? Like what's a law school example of where it's a reversal 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 where, you know, yeah, where it's like, you know, and I have a really viable self-defense case right now. And I could say this truly. I think that manifest weight there could really be applicable. But where they're going at here is 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 history of the relationship.

Circumstantially, right, the state certainly seemed to put forth a case that she had intent to kill. Purpose. This one's interesting. This one's different. Assignment of error four goes to something we've talked about a lot here on sidebar. 4 or 4B 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?

Financial crimes evidence can prejudice the jury character, right? So Sherilla'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 Sherella 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 17, 2022, Trilla was driving on Interstate 71 with Rousseau 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. 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 Shirala can be heard arguing and threatening one another. Just want to play that for you. Why would I just let you in my hands if you break up with me and you're done to need to break my car. Like, you're starting to key my car. I will keep your car if you do not let me in the house. You're gonna key my car if you if I do know

If you don't let me in the house, yes What the fuck? Yeah, I know, so just let me in the house No, like why can't you just be like like calm at least for a second? I can feel calm about me in the house I am calm I don't think you get to decide that with your weird You really threatening to keep too?

You're really threatening To key my car What does he threatening? Tom, I'm gonna give you one last chance to open the door I'm gonna leave and do it 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 Shurilla's motive, intent, knowledge, absence of mistake or accident, to provide contacts with respect to Shillla's

relationship with Rousseau. Specifically, the state argued as follows. Shurilla's past threats and aggression toward Rousseau provide an important perspective of how Shurilla responds in situations where she is displeased or in disagreement with others. Further, the evidence shows that Shorilla 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 defended that may be 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? Maybe you disagree. I don't know. You tell me. I think it actually meets the exception. It was properly let in. I would just say that absence of mistake is really huge, right? 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 ultimate incident itself, which is really an important factor that they courts weigh into. You know, it's one thing to be introducing bad acts and happened years prior. But this was like the same 30 days. So really significant there. 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 meant to, there's an assumption that they will know how to appropriately weigh that type of other acts evidence and not use it to prejudice the defendant in a certain way. I would say, and, you know, when I've been reading up on this case, I mean, what strikes me is like, why was this not trying to adjourn? I mean, some people would say,

because the facts are so bad that Jesse, you and I know, you need one, right? And certainly, you know, with the judge, it's only one. And so 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 has even less teeth, I think. Let me ask you about that. I don't know if it's the cynical version of me, but 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 cap on to determine whether or not this evidence is admissible? And if it's not immiscible, I'm going to put that. it to the side. And then when it comes time 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 their 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'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. I'm only true. I'm on the cusp of it in the self-defense case that I have. It's like it feels so jarring to me. But I've never, I've never tried a case in 29 years.

Okay. And to be clear, I'm not making any accusations about this judge or any judge whatsoever. Of course. I know people will have that question. That's all. That's as we talk about. Sure. And of course, and I'm going to say this. I mean, we want the system to work in that way, right? We want, of course, judges to, to, you know, be able to sort of win, you know, narrow the evidence and understand the law and apply it appropriately. 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 we're all humans, right? There's that expression once the bell is rung, you can't unring it.

You know, that's really, that's applicable in this situation. So I want to go back to something. So I mentioned that the appeals process, you know, has been going on for several years, there's been different avenues. a little confusing, but there was this other attempt. So our understanding was another appeal was filed after McKenzie Sherilla 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, 2003. On October 24th, 2024, Sherella 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 one 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. Shurrilla argues the 365 day clock did not begin until December 15th, 2023. When the juvenile bindover 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 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, how it could affect post-conviction relief. What should we be knowing about this? I think there's some irony here, if I can, because the issue of normally raised in post-conviction is in effect. effective assistance of counsel of the trial lawyer. 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, it's like that should be your wheelhouse. And so I'll just say, you know what, they missed a deadline. I actually went down the rabbit hole in their argument on the briefing and why they didn't miss the deadline. And really, it was just a calculation error. They just missed it. 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, et cetera. So she doesn't have any potential post-conviction relief. After the appeals court denied the appeal, the shrillis took the case, our understanding, to the state Supreme Court. I think this was like their second time doing so. They had earlier

appeal to the court. The judges declined to review the case. There is this latest request for review, and this is where McKenzie Shurla's defense, they brought up another, issue that they had with her case. And it says, quote, the primary issue at trial concerned Shirilla's intent. In support of its theory, the state introduced testimony and evidence suggesting that Shirilla 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 D.R.'s Relatives about Shirilla and D.R. sometimes tumultuous relationship. Apart from these prior unrelated incidents, however, the state failed to introduce any evidence suggesting that

Sharilla 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 intent of killing DR and DF. To the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly established that Sharla 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 Shirilla and Dominic, they reveal a little bit more about their 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.

And she used to have road rage all the time. I remember someone told me that she dropped Dom up on the highway because they got in a fight. So 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 Cush. Yeah, what's that? she smokes much of weed. She smokes weed and there's pictures on her Instagram but I'm sure she took it down now. Yeah, we've seen cars smoking weed. Yeah, we had those. Um, so she rode waged even kicked

him out on the highway once. Yeah. She, he just, she just drove him crazy and we just don't know why he dealt with this. Was anything suspicious about their behavior? Not at all. Not at all. They seem 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 miles per hour. If you can say it never broke, she wasn't under intoxication, that's all you need for intent. Like, are they kind of mixing a little bit between intent motive? Or am I wrong? 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 their argument is that motive piece. Well, it's not an element of any of the offenses for which she's charged. So it's totally irrelevant. And I think you've nailed it with the intent, right? The speed, the lack of breaking. There were also, as you said, some, some friends that testified that certainly, you know, gave evidence that there was real friction in the relationship. I also think just, Jesse, if you and I, in a relationship hypothetically and one of us is recording our arguments, that also says, you know, there are issues there so much so that I'm recording an argument with us.

There is 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 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. 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 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 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. They'll see the news, right? The documentary is 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 justice could well, you know, hear 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? Look, I wanted your perspective on something else. So in the meantime, You have the families of Dom and Davy on. 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 Christine Russo, 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. 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 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 got to preview it. They flew in. The producers flew in from the UK in January. And I previewed it then. Help make some edits. They took out some things that were not nice things that were said about my brother from certain people in the cast. And 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 Jump Suit Pablo. It was like a week ago. And like the only time that I got upset, I went to say, he had told me in the calls that, like, she just doesn't show any remorse. 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. 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 anymore since she was tried and convicted in sentence, it's never in all her calls or her actions. I haven't gotten a letter of, I missed like nothing. You would have thought that she missed them, you know,

but he's not talked about she doesn't care whatsoever. So that really, it makes me feel like he died 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 has 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, 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. And we're going to put a link to that petition or our show notes if you guys are interested in learning more.

But Diane, what do you think about that? I just inherently, I think we've seen a lot of bad law created as a reaction of certain high-profile cases. And here's my response to this one in particular, is just that there's a lot of innocent people that are actually convicted of crimes. And 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 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 base.

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. 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 deny them that opportunity, I think would be, would be gross. Diane Manashi, thank you so much for taking the time to break it down with me. Really, 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, ex-instagram, my news nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time, everybody.