James Crumbley, the father of the Oxford High School shooter who has been found guilty, is scheduled to appear in court on Friday. He aims to persuade a judge to either grant him a fresh trial or overturn his conviction. Meanwhile, prosecutors will argue for maintaining his current imprisonment.
The dispute centers around whether Oakland County prosecutors improperly failed to disclose to Crumbley the presence of proffer agreements that were said to shield two key witnesses from facing charges related to their conduct prior to the November 30, 2021, shooting, provided they testified. Crumbley contends he had a right to this information; however, the prosecution claims they were under no duty to provide these agreements, asserting that no immunity was granted to the two witnesses.
James Crumbley is also puzzled as to why his son was not compelled to testify during the trial. The judge permitted his son to exercise his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, even though he had previously entered a guilty plea and received a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in an unrelated case. Additionally, Crumbley seeks clarification on why his legal representative did not contest this decision made by the judge.
Begin your day with more knowledge. Receive all essential news directly in your mailbox every morning.
[STAY UP TO DATE: Sign up for our Daily Briefing newsletter Today to receive the Free Press in your inbox. ]
For the moment, most of what attracts attention revolves around the plea deals secured by prosecutors from two staff members at the school when they were assembling their landmark case in 2021 against James and Jennifer Crumbley. Last year marked the first time in American history where parents faced criminal charges related to a mass school shooting carried out by their own offspring.
The prosecution secured those convictions with assistance from the two school witnesses who had entered into proffer agreements. These agreements ensured that their statements to investigators could not be used against them later. However, the defense only became aware of these agreements a week after James Crumbley’s conviction. The Free Press uncovered them and released an investigative report.
Jennifer Crumbley was the first to use the proffer agreements as justification for seeking either a retrial or having her conviction overturned. In a filing submitted previously year. Her spouse quickly did the same.
Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews has previously voiced reservations regarding how the prosecution managed the proffer agreements. She mentioned that when determining whether to grant new trials or invalidate the convictions, her sole consideration is this: "Do we currently have doubt about the validity of the verdicts?"
Jennifer and James Crumbley created a historical record last year when individual juries found them guilty of unintentional manslaughter due to the deaths of four students slain by their offspring: Hana St. Juliana, aged 14; Tate Myre, aged 16; Justin Shilling, aged 17, and Madisyn Baldwin, also 17 Additionally, six other students and a teacher sustained injuries.
The Crumbley parents faced charges in individual trials for purchasing a firearm for their son, neglecting to store it safely, and not informing the school about it during an important meeting with administrators on the day of the shooting incident. Each parent is currently incarcerated, facing 10-15 years behind bars.
The Crumbley family claims they were unaware of their son’s intentions to attack his school; they assert that he did not have unrestricted access to the firearm involved. They also state that the weapon, which was gifted to him prematurely for Christmas, was stored inside a dresser, unloaded, with the ammunition kept separately in another compartment.
The person who carried out the shooting was 15 years old when this violent event occurred. Like the others mentioned, he is also challenging his verdict.
Crumbleys: The jury was entitled to know that two school witnesses received protection
The two educational administrators involved are ex-school counselor Shawn Hopkins and former Dean of Students Nicholas Ejak. These individuals faced controversy for allowing the attacker back into class even though they received numerous alerts regarding his conduct leading up to the tragedy. Additionally, they did not inspect his bag—which held the firearm—nor did they inquire with his family about potential access to guns, nor instruct them to bring him home following discovery of an unsettling sketch depicting a weapon, a person hemorrhaging, along with the chilling message: “The thoughts won’t cease. Assist me.”
"The insistence of these individuals on entering into proffer agreements before engaging with the prosecutors suggests that neither party was willing to cooperate with the prosecution unless they were afforded some form of protection," contends Alona Sharon, who serves as James Crumbley’s appellate lawyer, in submitted legal papers.
Although Hopkins and Ejak did speak to law enforcement officials on the day of the incident, it became evident afterward that their primary focus turned toward ensuring their personal safety. Their preoccupation with protecting themselves prompted them to seek legal representation and subsequently push for proffer agreements in return for the details they possessed," Sharon notes. "This court must recognize that without these signed proffer agreements, neither Hopkins nor Ejak were willing to take part in the trial proceedings or assist the prosecution voluntarily.
The prosecution has refuted these claims, asserting that Ejak and Hopkins testified due to subpoenas rather than the proffer agreements. Furthermore, they argue that the Crumbleys were convicted solely based on their own conduct and failures, with no other factors involved.
At an earlier hearing for Jennifer Crumble, Assistant prosecutor Marc Keast of Oakland County strongly criticized the defendant’s mother in open court.
"He pointed out that she was responsible for these four fatalities... let nobody else pass judgment on her," Keast stated, alluding to the four students who lost their lives in the shooting.
Keast also supported how the prosecution managed the trials and the proffer agreements.
Keast stated that the prosecution did not commit any misconduct.
He further emphasized a point that prosecutors have consistently made: The Crumbley family members were uniquely positioned to prevent this tragedy since they possessed crucial information that the school authorities lacked.
"Jennifer Crumbley was aware of the circumstances. Jennifer Crumbley had the chance to bring him back home. She could have examined the backpack and taken her child away from school," Keast stated during the mother's hearing, pointing out that she failed to do so.
As stated during the trial, the father also did not.
"James Crumbley was afforded a just trial. Similar to his sister Jennifer Crumbley, we concur with the jury’s decision in this matter and feel it ought to be maintained," said Jeff Wattrick, a spokesperson for the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office, in an earlier statement.
Ejak and Hopkins were the final individuals to encounter both the shooter and his parents prior to the incident taking place. During the court proceedings, testimonies revealed that the school counselor had been alerted several times by educators regarding concerning behaviors exhibited by the shooter just preceding the event: In class, he was found browsing bullet-related content on his phone and viewing footage showing an individual attacking others with gunfire. Most alarming was perhaps the ominous sketch of a firearm alongside the unsettling phrase “The thoughts won’t cease. Assist me.” drawn by him on his mathematics assignment paper.
The parents were called to the counselor's office where they met with their son, along with Ejak and Hopkins. The school authorities informed them that their child seemed upset but assured them that there was no indication of self-harm or harm towards others. In conclusion, they suggested that keeping him in class among his peers would be more beneficial than having him isolated at home.
The mother and father returned to work. Their boy resumed classes. After two hours, he discharged his initial round.
The Crumbleys' newly appointed legal team argues that by keeping the proffer agreements hidden, the prosecutors prevented the defense from interrogating and possibly uncovering the "potential bias and motives" of the two school witnesses who were testifying in support of the prosecution.
The hearing starts at 9 a.m. on Friday.
Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@freepress.com
The article was initially published in the Detroit Free Press. James Crumbley goes back to court: I also warrant a fresh hearing