Attorneys for Jennifer Crumbley, mother of the Oxford High School shooter, have filed a motion seeking an acquittal or a new trial. They argue that her February conviction on four counts of involuntary manslaughter was the result of a flawed trial influenced by prosecutorial overreach. The defense claims Jennifer's actions, while perhaps negligent, were not criminal and that the prosecution withheld crucial evidence and employed inconsistent legal theories.
The motion, filed by attorney Michael Dezsi, asserts that the trial was "tainted from top to bottom" and that Jennifer Crumbley was denied a fair trial. The defense contends that key impeachment evidence was withheld and that the prosecution pursued conflicting legal strategies. The unprecedented convictions of Jennifer and her husband, James Crumbley, on involuntary manslaughter charges set a new legal precedent for parents of children who commit crimes.
The defense argues that the prosecution offered cooperation agreements to school counselor Sean Hopkins and former Dean of Students Nicholas Ejak in exchange for their testimony against Jennifer Crumbley, but failed to disclose these agreements to the defense. These agreements, Dezsi contends, allowed Hopkins and Ejak to avoid facing charges themselves. An independent investigation into the shooting revealed that both Hopkins and Ejak, who possessed significant knowledge about the decision to allow the shooter back into class after the meeting with his parents and school officials on the morning of the incident, declined to participate in the investigation.
The defense further alleges that Jennifer Crumbley's rights were violated due to the lack of a unanimous jury decision regarding the specific crimes committed. Dezsi emphasizes that no parent in the United States has previously been held criminally liable for their child's actions in a school shooting, suggesting that Jennifer's prosecution represents an overreach. He asserts that this case sets a dangerous precedent for parents nationwide.
Jennifer Crumbley becomes emotional in court. (Mandi Wright/Detroit Free Press via AP, Poo)
Ethan Crumbley's drawings. (Oakland County)
Jennifer and Ethan Crumbley at a gun range. (Mandi Wright/Detroit Free Press via AP, Pool)
Jennifer Crumbley enters the courtroom. (Mandi Wright/Detroit Free Press via AP, Pool)
Jennifer Crumbley arrives for sentencing. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)
Victims of the Oxford High School shooting. (FOX 2 Detroit)
James Crumbley. (Mandi Wright/Detroit Free Press)
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald, who prosecuted all three Crumbleys, countered the defense's claims, arguing that parents are concerned about school safety, not prosecution. She emphasized the jury's unanimous verdict holding the Crumbleys accountable for their role in the tragic events. Chief Assistant Prosecutor David Williams denied that any witnesses were offered deals for their testimony, stating that they testified without any promises or protection. He maintains that the Crumbleys' actions and inactions, including ignoring warning signs, providing the weapon, and failing to remove their son from the situation, warrant prosecution. The Michigan Court of Appeals previously upheld the connection between the Crumbleys' actions and their son's actions, citing their involvement in his untreated mental state, providing the weapon, and failing to intervene. James and Ethan Crumbley are also appealing their convictions.
