Site icon eDiscovery Today by Doug Austin

Electronic Evidence in The Crash: eDiscovery Trends

Electronic Evidence in The Crash

People are talking about the new Netflix documentary The Crash. As an eDiscovery professional, I took particular note of the electronic evidence in The Crash.

If you haven’t seen The Crash and don’t want to find out the details about the case because you plan to watch it, then don’t read any further as I will highlight some of the evidence discussed in the documentary (as well as one or two evidence types that were not discussed in the documentary).

What happened

Advertisement

In the early morning of July 31, 2022, 17-year-old Mackenzie Shirilla drove her boyfriend, 20-year-old Dominic Russo, and his friend, 19-year-old Davion Flanagan, home from a high school graduation party in Strongsville, Ohio. During that drive home after turning down a long stretch of a quiet residential road, Shirilla accelerated her Toyota Camry to roughly 100 miles per hour before slamming the vehicle head-on into a brick building, killing Russo and Flanagan and critically injuring herself.

Initially, the crash seemed like a horrible accident, perhaps with Shirilla under the influence as officers collected 8.1 grams of mushrooms, a bong and a bag of marijuana from the vehicle. However, Shirilla had not been found to be under the influence of alcohol or mushrooms at the time of the crash. She was found to have marijuana in her system, but it wasn’t thought to be enough to have impaired her driving.

The investigation shifts

As the investigation continued, the State began to shift its focus from a possible case of reckless driving to one where they felt that Shirilla intentionally drove the car at a high speed into the brick building. They found evidence that indicated the car was driven at a high rate of speed with intent and that the relationship between Shirilla and Russo was turbulent, indicating a potential motive.

Advertisement

Electronic evidence that came into play in this case included:

Additionally, a witness testified that, less that a month before the fatal crash, he heard Shirilla threaten to crash a car in which Shirilla and Russo were traveling.

One defense explanation

Shirilla’s defense team pointed to her diagnosis of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (“POTS”), claiming that her POTS condition may have led to a medical issue that caused the accident. However, Shirella’s mom admitted that she helped her apply for a driver’s license twice since the POTS diagnosis was made and neither time disclosed the condition. And when applying for a temporary driver’s license after the accident in 2022, Shirilla attested that she did not have “any condition that results in episodic impairment of consciousness or loss of muscular control.”

The verdict

In a bench trial, the trial court found Shirilla guilty of all counts, including two counts of murder, felonious assault and aggravated vehicular homicide as well as drug possession and possessing criminal tools. She was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 15 years to life in prison. She continues to maintain her innocence and did so in the documentary from prison.

The Crash is compelling viewing for a variety of reasons. But, for an eDiscovery nerd like me, the electronic evidence in The Crash was particularly compelling. Without it, this tragedy would probably still be considered a tragic accident, not an intentional act.

So, what do you think about the electronic evidence in The Crash? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Note: Facts and statements were taken from the court proceedings and full case details of Shirilla’s 2024 appeal which are documented by the Ohio State Supreme Court here.

Image Copyright © Netflix

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the authors and speakers themselves, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Exit mobile version