Notice: Function wp_get_loading_optimization_attributes was called incorrectly. An image should not be lazy-loaded and marked as high priority at the same time. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.3.0.) in /home/globabjn/spygist.com/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6260
Notice: Function get_loading_optimization_attributes was called incorrectly. An image should not be lazy-loaded and marked as high priority at the same time. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. in /home/globabjn/spygist.com/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6260
Reading Time: 3 minutes
She went to prison and Netflix did a deep dive on her case in The Crash.
Now, Mackenzie Shirilla is asking the court for a new trial.
Her new attorneys say that her rights were violated, that she had inadequate legal representation, and
Are they right? Is she just not enjoying prison? Is it a little of both?
A new trial?
On Tuesday, July 28, Shirilla’s news attorneys filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, Us Weekly reports.
The federal petition is based around the belief that key exculpatory evidence was wrongfully excluded during her original trial.
This new legal challenge also asserts that there was insufficient evidence leading to Shirilla’s conviction.
In both cases (and beyond), her new legal team says that she had ineffective counsel at trial.
As far as the excluded evidence goes, there’s an explanation for Shirilla driving where she was on the night of July 31, 2022 — one that doesn’t include her alleged intention to murder boyfriend Dominic Russo and friend Davion Flanagan.
“The prosecution theorized that the location was intended to be private in order for Shirilla to crash the vehicle without immediate attention,” her new legal team argues.
“But the defense had evidence that a local grocer had left a package of produce for Shirilla at a 24-hour pickup spot,” their filing notes.
This pickup spot was “at a store located in the vicinity of the crash scene.”
Shirilla’s attorneys wrote: “This would have provided a benign explanation for why Shirilla was driving in this particular area that morning.”
They note that this was “evidence not presented by the defendant even though the grocer testified about other matters.”
Should a minor’s case be tried in adult court?
Additionally, Shirilla’s new legal team argue that her rights were violated on a more broad level during the trial.
Specifically, she was a minor at the time of the tragic deaths of her two companions.
Her trial, they argue, was improperly transferred from juvenile court to adult court. Improper because she was still a minor and belonged in juvenile court.
If the prosecution’s theory was that an emotional teenager tried to kill herself and her companions by driving at high speed into a wall, would that not belong in a different legal venue than it would if, say, a 30-year-old had done the same?
That is, essentially, her attorneys’ argument. And, whatever we may think of Shirilla and her culpability, that seems sound.
The bit about the potentially exculpatory evidence does seem like something that a courtroom should hear.
Imagine yourself as a juror (Shirilla had a bench trial, but bear with us) and you vote to convict someone who seemingly had no possible reason for being in an area except to commit a crime.
If you later learned that they were on their way to the grocery store, but were not permitted to explain this in court, you might think that it could have influenced your verdict.
That said, we have not seen this alleged evidence. We don’t know if Shirilla was actually on her way to pick up a parcel.
Two young men died in a horrific crash that could have claimed Shirilla’s life, too. It seems likely that she has at least some culpability. Whether it’s worth two concurrent sentences of 15 years … that may be up to a new trial to determine. Or not, as the case may be.