Prosecutors: Oxford shooter's dad's claims for new trial 'without merit'
James Crumbley's arguments for a new trial are meritless and don't have a legal basis for the court to grant him a second trial or an acquittal, prosecutors say.
The father of the Oxford High School shooter asked for a new trial in late February, in part because of agreements made with two Oxford school officials that were not given to his defense attorney and because of the court's alleged failure to properly handle the shooter's assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights.
Crumbley was convicted in March 2024 of four counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with his son Ethan's Nov. 30, 2021, mass shooting at Oxford High School, which left four students — Hana St. Juliana, 14; Justin Shilling, 17; Tate Myre, 16; and Madisyn Baldwin, 16 — dead and six others and a teacher injured. His wife, Jennifer Crumbley, was convicted by a separate jury.
More: James Crumbley asks for new trial, says prosecutors withheld evidence
Assistant Prosecutor Joseph Shada argued in a filing Friday that Crumbley received a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers, and his motion for a new trial should be denied.
"The jury determined that defendant was grossly negligent and that his gross negligence was a cause of the four deaths in the Oxford High School shooting," Shada wrote. "He received a fair trial, and none of defendant's arguments are sufficient to undermine the unanimous jury verdict."
Crumbley claimed that prosecutors committed a discovery violation when they failed to turn over copies of so-called proffer agreements they made with Oxford High School counselor Shawn Hopkins and former Dean of Students Nick Ejak, who both met with the shooter and his parents the morning of the 2021 shooting.
The agreements noted that prosecutors would consider the statements made by Ejak and Hopkins during meetings with prosecutors "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."
"The two proffer agreements were not required to be produced under the Court Rules, were immaterial to defendant's guilt, and were not Brady material," Shada wrote, referring to the legal term that requires prosecutors to provide all possibly exculpatory evidence to defense attorneys.
Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Matthews said during a motion hearing for Jennifer Crumbley in late January that she was "very, very" concerned about the possibility of a discovery violation as it relates to the proffer agreements.
Shada argued the proffer agreements allowed prosecutors to meet with Ejak and Hopkins to evaluate them as potential witnesses. This is a standard part of trial preparation, he said, and was created at the request of their attorneys. They do not grant immunity, they do not require testimony and they do not restrict prosecutors' ability to bring charges against Ejak and Hopkins in the future.
A major aspect of Crumbley's defense was arguing that he did not know about the danger his son presented, and saying the school had criminal exposure for the shooter's acts would undercut his own defense, Shada wrote. Even if the school was criminally culpable — prosecutors have said there is not enough evidence of this to bring charges — Crumbley would still be liable for his own actions and inactions.
Alona Sharon, Crumbley's appellate attorney, argued in early February that Matthews failed to examine whether the shooter properly asserted his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, and that Crumbley's trial attorney, Mariell Lehman, failed to object when Matthews did not do this. Matthews did not allow the shooter to testify at Crumbley's trial because he asserted blanket Fifth Amendment protections.
But Shada said Crumbley's Fifth Amendment claim is meritless because he abandoned the attempt to call his son as a witness. Matthews told Lehman that she could bring a motion to question the validity of the shooter's Fifth Amendment plea, but she never did so. Lehman did not file a motion to compel the shooter to testify, as Jennifer Crumbley's attorney did.
"This Court cannot be faulted for trial counsel's decision not to pursue the issue," Shada wrote. "Further, Defendant could not call his son as a witness because his son had a valid claim of Fifth Amendment privilege, and — regardless of such a privilege — his son's statements would not help him as they only further solidify his guilt."
Shada said Crumbley's argument that his convictions and his son's convictions are factually inconsistent does not hold weight. He said Crumbley misconstrued the theories in both cases, as the case never hinged on whether the shooter was mentally ill. Prosecutors previously argued that there is a distinction between being in mental distress and the statutory definition of mental illness.
Crumbley's conviction marked the second time in the United States a parent was convicted of manslaughter for a mass shooting carried out by his or her child; the first was of his wife, Jennifer. Matthews sentenced them both to 10-15 years in prison.
Prosecutors said Crumbley acted in a grossly negligent way in storing a gun and ammunition where his son could access it and that he failed to control his child to keep him from harming others.
Jennifer Crumbley has filed a similar motion for a new trial or for an acquittal and is waiting on Matthews to make a ruling on the issue of the proffer agreements. Matthews denied all of her other claims.
kberg@detroitnews.com
This article originally appeared on The Detroit News: Prosecutors: Oxford shooter's dad's claims for new trial 'without merit'
