Mackenzie Shirilla, convicted of murdering two friends by intentionally crashing a car at high speed, is seeking a new trial, alleging her constitutional rights were violated. Shirilla, 22, was found guilty in 2023 of killing her boyfriend, Dominic Russo, 20, and their friend, Davion Flanagan, 19, by driving a vehicle into a building at nearly 100 mph two days before her 18th birthday. She is currently serving two concurrent sentences of 15 years to life at the Ohio Reformatory for Women, with her first opportunity for parole in September 2037.
New defense attorneys filed a habeas corpus petition in Ohio's Northern District Court, asserting that Shirilla's trial lawyers were ineffective and withheld crucial evidence. The petition claims that the previous legal team failed to present expert testimony regarding Shirilla's Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), a condition that can cause fainting, and did not submit her medical records related to this diagnosis.
Furthermore, the filing argues that Shirilla's case was improperly transferred from juvenile court to adult court, a challenge her trial attorneys did not pursue. According to the new lawyers from Marein & Bradley LLC, these failures constitute violations of Shirilla's constitutional rights to due process, to confront witnesses, and to effective counsel.
Many arguments presented in the federal filing mirror those previously rejected by an appeals court. These include claims that insufficient evidence existed to prove Shirilla committed murder and that she should not have been tried as an adult. The petition contends there was not enough evidence to support her conviction and that prosecutors failed to prove she acted "purposely or knowingly" before the fatal crash.
Attorneys argue that evidence of excessive speeding alone does not prove reckless behavior, which is a requirement for the aggravated vehicular homicide charge. The filing also alleges that a coroner's report was altered to classify Russo and Flanagan's deaths as homicides instead of accidents at the request of police. Additionally, it is claimed that the medical examiners who testified at trial did not perform the autopsies themselves.
However, the petition notes that Shirilla's original lawyers did not object to a deputy county medical examiner testifying in place of the primary examiner, nor did they object to changes in the coroner's report. The defense also argues that trial lawyers failed to present evidence such as text messages suggesting Russo was the "instigator" in a prior driving incident and information about Shirilla's purpose for being in the vicinity of the crash site.
According to the new defense team, evidence indicated Shirilla was near the PLIDCO building to pick up pre-ordered produce, a detail that could have provided a benign explanation for her presence. This evidence was not presented at trial, the attorneys claim.
The petition further states that trial lawyers missed the deadline for filing a post-conviction relief petition by one day. Separately, Shirilla's lawyers are challenging her conviction in filings with the Ohio Supreme Court and the Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals, citing ineffective counsel and confusing deadlines for post-conviction relief, particularly concerning the late filing of juvenile court transcripts.