Jennifer Crumbley, mother of Oxford High School shooter, asks judge to toss conviction
Ten months after being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, Jennifer Crumbley, the embattled mother of the Oxford High School shooter in Michigan, has asked a judge to throw out her historic conviction, alleging that she was the target of an overreaching prosecution that made numerous missteps, including "deliberately" withholding evidence from her about secret deals it made with school witnesses who testified against her.
Those deals were first disclosed in March by the Detroit Free Press, part of the Paste BN Network, when the newspaper learned that two school officials who drew scrutiny over their decisions involving the shooter had signed confidential agreements that protected them from having anything they told investigators used against them.
Ethan Crumbley opened fire at the high school in Oxford, Michigan, on Nov. 30, 2021, killing four students and injuring six other students and a teacher. Jennifer Crumbley and her husband, James, were the first parents of a mass school shooter in the U.S. to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter for the attack.
The agreements with the school officials were never made known to the defendants or the jury — which Jennifer Crumbley's appellate lawyer argues in the new court filing was unlawful. Specifically, he alleges the school witnesses were hoping to avoid prosecution over their own acts and therefore had a motive to testify in a way "so as to shift responsibility toward Mrs. Crumbley and away from themselves."
But the jury never got to hear that because, Crumbley's new lawyer maintains, the prosecution made sure the defense was never made privy to it.
'These proceedings were tainted from top to bottom'
"These proceedings were tainted from top to bottom and were borne out of prosecutorial overreach attempting to criminalize Mrs. Crumbley’s noncriminal conduct," appellate attorney Michael Dezsi writes in a Monday court filing, maintaining there were no legal grounds to charge Crumbley to begin with. "Apart from the improper decision to charge, Mrs. Crumbley was denied a fair trial where the prosecution deliberately withheld from the defense key impeachment evidence and proceeded on Kafkaesque inconsistent legal theories that work a grave injustice on the law."
Dezsi maintains that the prosecution wrongfully asserted two contradictory theories by charging the shooter as an adult, but at the same time alleging the mother "failed to control her minor child" – the one who actually pulled the trigger and claimed the lives of Hana St. Juliana, 14; Tate Myre, 16; Madisyn Baldwin, 17, and Justin Shilling, 17.
Dezsi argues it's inconsistent to portray the shooter as an adult in his prosecution but then paint him as a minor child in his mother's case.
The prosecution can't have it both ways, Dezsi argues in his filing, maintaining a parent's legal duty to control their child typically involves young children who aren't aware of the dangers or harm they are causing, not for teenagers like Ethan Crumbley — who methodically planned the massacre in his journal, writing that he hoped to kill as many people as he could, and deliberately chose to surrender so that he could witness the suffering.
Dezsi also cites an investigative report that concluded former Oxford High School counselor Shawn Hopkins and former Dean of Students Nicholas Ejak made "crucial" mistakes on the day of the shooting. They're the two school officials who signed confidential agreements early on with the prosecutor's office as it built its historic case against the Crumbleys.
Their mistakes, according to an investigation by Guidepost Solutions, included letting the shooter return to class despite receiving multiple warnings about his behavior hours before the shooting; not searching his backpack, which contained the gun; and not requiring his parents to bring him home after discovering a violent drawing he had made of a gun, a human body bleeding, along with the words, "The thoughts won't stop, help me."
"The point of highlighting these investigative findings is not to prove the criminal responsibility of Hopkins and Ejak. Rather, these findings merely demonstrate why Hopkins and Ejak were given proffer agreements in the first place, because they had obvious criminal exposure," Dezsi writes.
Dezsi submitted the filing with the help of law students from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, who assisted him in taking the first formal step to have Jennifer Crumbley's conviction thrown out.
"Jennifer Crumbley’s convictions for involuntary manslaughter stem from a trial riddled with legal errors where key evidence was withheld, and cooperation agreements were peddled and suppressed to secure testimony for the prosecution to convict an individual who committed no crime," Dezsi said in a prepared statement Monday, adding he has "outlined several legal errors that cast serious doubt as to the legitimacy of this sham prosecution."
"There’s a reason why no parent in America has ever been held responsible for the criminal acts of their child in relation to a school shooting," Dezsi continued. "It is because Mrs. Crumbley committed no crime. This case should be concerning for parents everywhere."
Lawyer: Reasons why Jennifer Crumbley's conviction should be tossed
In his filing, Dezsi asks Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews for either an acquittal or a new trial on multiple grounds, including:
- The prosecution allegedly failed to turn over exculpatory evidence — or evidence that is favorable to a defendant — by not disclosing it had entered into proffer agreements with two key school witnesses, and by not offering these agreements and recorded interview statements to the defense.
- The prosecution allegedly asserted inconsistent culpability theories by charging the shooter as an adult — he was also sentenced as an adult — while at the same time claiming the mom failed to control her minor child.
- Under common law, Jennifer Crumbley allegedly owed no legal duty to the victims of the shooting, no more than someone has a duty to act if they see someone robbing a store. Dezsi argues this case should never have been charged in the first place, and that the prosecution cannot prove that the mother had a duty to protect the student victims from her son because, he maintains, no such legal duty exists in Michigan or elsewhere. The prosecution's claim that she does is an issue for the civil courts, not criminal courts.
- The court's jury instructions allegedly were flawed in that the judge erroneously instructed jurors that they could convict Jennifer Crumbley without unanimously agreeing as to what crime she committed. The jurors were allowed to convict under one of two theories: By concluding she failed in her duty to control her minor son, or, that she failed to properly secure the gun and consequently gave him access to it. The jurors were told they didn't all have to agree on which theory they would convict her under. Dezsi argues this is flawed, maintaining if six jurors concluded it was the gun theory, and the other six went with the failure to control her child, that would be a hung jury.
- Jennifer Crumbley allegedly had an ineffective lawyer at trial.
Shannon Smith, who represented Jennifer Crumbley since her arrest following the shooting, declined comment.
Prosecution defends its handling of Crumbley case: 'There was no immunity'
In a statement Monday, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald defended her office's handling of Jennifer Crumbley's case and fired back at Dezsi's assertion that "parents everywhere should be worried about this case."
“Parents everywhere are worried," McDonald said. "But they are not worried about being prosecuted, they are worried about their kids being shot at school. James and Jennifer Crumbley are the rare, grossly negligent exception, and twenty-four jurors unanimously agreed they are responsible for the deaths of Hana, Madisyn, Tate, and Justin. Holding them accountable for their role is one important step in making our schools safer.”
The statement did not explain why the prosecutor's office withheld from the defense the confidential proffer agreements it had with two school officials. But it did stress that no one received immunity. “No witnesses were given anything for their testimony, and there was no immunity – these witnesses testified without any promises or protection whatsoever," Chief Assistant Prosecutor David Williams said in the statement, adding: "The Michigan Court of Appeals has already reviewed the legal issues raised by Jennifer Crumbley and rejected them."
Williams then repeated the common themes argued at trial, stating: "(T)wo parents ignored the obvious signs that their son was in crisis, bought him a gun and failed to secure it, and then failed to disclose the existence of the gun or take their son home when he drew out his plans, including writing “blood everywhere” with a picture of a gun and a body with bleeding bullet wounds."
Williams also cited the following excerpt from a previous Michigan Court of Appeals opinion:
“(The Crumbleys') actions and inactions were inexorably intertwined with (their son's) actions ... This connection exists not simply because of the parent-child relationship but also because of the facts showing that (the parents) were actively involved in (their son's) mental state remaining untreated, that they provided him with the weapon used to kill the victims, and that they refused to remove him from the situation that led directly to the shootings.”
Dezsi takes issue with these claims, noting there was no safe storage law in Michigan when the 2021 school shooting happened – so the Crumbleys broke no law on that front; and the parents never refused to take their son home from school, but rather the school officials concluded it would be better for him to remain in school so that he wouldn't be home alone while feeling sad – a fact they admitted to during trial, conceding they also never ordered the parents to take him home.
Moreover, Dezsi argues, it was the school officials who had a duty to protect the students in the school – not the parents, who have argued they relied on the expertise of the counselor and dean of students, who concluded the shooter was not a threat to himself or anyone else, and let him go back to class.
Investigation: Oxford High School officials failed 'the common sense test'
James and Jennifer Crumbley are the first parents in America to be held responsible for a mass school shooting committed by their child. The mom was convicted first in February, then the dad in March.
The prosecution argued the Crumbleys, more than anyone else, could have prevented the shooting had they disclosed to two school officials during a pivotal meeting the morning of the shooting that their son had access to a gun, and, had they brought him home from school after learning about the drawing he made that included a gun, a human body bleeding and the words, "The thoughts won't stop. Help me."
The Crumbleys returned to their jobs that day and vowed to get him help within 48 hours. Their son returned to class after the counselor and dean of students concluded he was not a threat to anyone, and that it would be better for him to be near peers than alone at home.
Two hours later, the boy emerged from a bathroom and opened fire.
The dean of students and counselor never searched his backpack, which contained the gun, and never asked his parents if he had access to a gun, despite receiving multiple warnings about the shooter's behavior in the 24 hours before the shooting, including: The shooter had been researching bullets in class, looking at a movie of someone gunning people down and drawing a picture of a gun and blood on his math work sheet.
After the shooting, an independent investigation concluded that Hopkins and Ejak failed — after receiving multiple warnings — to recognize that the shooter "might cause physical harm at the school" and should have required his parents to take him out of school and to a mental health professional.
“Hopkins and Ejak should not have allowed the shooter to return to class," the investigative report reads, adding school officials had "reasonable suspicion" to search his backpack, and the decision that allowed him to go back to class "fails the common sense test."
To date, no school officials have been charged in the shooting. In March, one day after James Crumbley was convicted in the shooting, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald announced no charges would be filed against any school officials.
"She has reviewed all the available evidence and has not seen any evidence that would support criminal charges for anyone at the school district," the prosecutor's office said at the time.
Meanwhile, the families of the victims have long been pushing to have school officials held accountable, too, referring to them as the fourth culprit in the tragedy. The other three are the parents and Ethan Crumbley, who pleaded guilty to all of his crimes and is serving a life sentence.
This fall, McDonald told the victims' families in a letter that she does not have the authority to investigate and charge any school officials, but that the state attorney general does.
At the urging of the victims' families, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced last week that she would launch a state-led investigation into the shooting that will, among other things, try to determine if school officials engaged in any wrongdoing.
Expert: Even 'a wink or a nod' must be disclosed
The Oakland County Prosecutor's office has vehemently denied offering any school officials immunity, and maintains the proffer agreements never stated that, either.
"Those agreements were drafted by the prosecutor’s office, and they made crystal clear to Hopkins, Ejak and their attorneys … that there was never an implicit or explicit promise of immunity, leniency or favoritism of any kind," the prosecutor's office said in a previous statement. "As you will see, these letters spell that out. Because there were no promises of any kind, those letters were not required to be disclosed."
Dezsi scoffed at the claim, arguing "such an assertion is contradicted by the express terms of the agreements."
"In fact, the proffer agreements expressly provide that, 'in return' for cooperating and providing 'truthful information... including information about possible criminal activity by your client and others' this office will consider your client’s proffer statements in deciding how to resolve this investigation as it relates to your client and any charges pending against your client being prosecuted by this office,” Dezsi writes in his filing.
Moreover, he stressed:
"For the prosecution to now claim that 'there was never an implicit or explicit promise of... leniency, or favoritism of any kind' is simply disingenuous at best, or deliberately misleading at worst."
Multiple defense experts agree with Dezsi, arguing the proffer agreements amount to what is known in legal circles as "Brady" material that must be disclosed to the defense.
As Art Weiss, president of the Michigan Criminal Defense Attorneys Association put it: “Anything written or oral, a wink or a nod, or an indirect assurance has to be disclosed.”
Jennifer Crumbley has long maintained that she never knew her son had plans to shoot up his school; that she never saw any signs that he was mentally ill; and that the gun he used in his deadly attack was not his to use freely, but that it was secured and unloaded in an armoire, with the bullets hidden in a separate drawer.
The jury, however, concluded that was not enough to stop her 15-year-old son from sneaking the weapon out of the house, and taking it to school to carry out a rampage that left four students dead.
The tragedy set the stage for the landmark prosecution that put parent gun owners everywhere on notice to keep their guns safely stored or risk being prosecuted should their child commit a crime with the weapon. Since the Oxford shooting, Michigan has passed a safe-storage law that now requires all gun owners to secure their weapons to prevent them from falling into the hands of minors – which James Crumbley maintains he did, but the jury concluded otherwise.
James Crumbley also is appealing. So is the shooter, who is trying to take back his guilty plea as his new defense team maintains he was too young to understand what he was doing when he pled guilty. The appellate lawyers also argue that Ethan Crumbley may have suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome, which was never raised by his initial defense team, and want the judge to reconsider his life-without-parole sentence.
Oakland County Circuit Judge Kwame Rowe, who handed down the stiff punishment, is expected to issue a ruling on the matter soon.
The Oakland County Prosecutor's office maintains the shooter was sentenced fair and square and urged the judge to let his punishment stick. The prosecution has argued that the mass shooting was premediated as the gunman plotted and planned the massacre in his journal and in a videotaped manifesto. Moreover, prosecutors argued, the shooter also wrote in his journal that he knew his crime would send him to prison for the rest of his life, and that he intentionally chose not to kill himself because he wanted to witness the suffering.
Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@freepress.com