Jennifer Crumbley's appeal: Judge deciding if Oxford High School shooter's mother should get new trial
Michigan judge considers arguments in Jennifer Crumbley case
Jennifer and her husband, James Crumbley, were both convicted by juries of four counts of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10-15 years in prison for their role in the Nov. 30, 2021 school shooting. The charges were brought against the couple after their then-15-year-old son brought a gun to school and killed four people.
PONTIAC, Mich. (FOX 2) - An Oakland County judge will examine evidence presented by attorneys before deciding if Jennifer Crumbley, the Oxford High School shooter's mother, should get a new trial.
Jennifer and her husband, James Crumbley, were both convicted by juries of four counts of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10-15 years in prison for their role in the Nov. 30, 2021 school shooting. The charges were brought against the couple after their then-15-year-old son brought a gun to school and killed four people.
Jennifer Crumbley in court
What they're saying:
Jennifer's attorney, Michael Dezi, argues that the prosecution committed a violation by not revealing a proffer agreement between the prosecutor's office and two key witnesses in the case. According to Dezsi, he believes the proffers provided immunity to school employees Nick Ejak and Shawn Hopkins, despite the prosecution saying they did not.
Ejak and Hopkins met with the Crumbleys just hours before the school shooting on Nov. 30, 3021, after their son drew disturbing images on a worksheet. They testified about that meeting.
Dezsi said the testimony, which he argued was largely subjective, helped convict his client.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c501b/c501b656e187e88851af8a0addd43da8dea5ab3c" alt=""
Jennifer Crumbley in court on Jan. 31, 2025
"This is Mr. Ejak testifying that he had an expectation that they would be leaving from the meeting with their son. He said, ‘It seems a little odd based on my experiences,’" Dezsi said. "So, they were trying to lay a predicate that would satisfy the gross negligence standard that didn't come from anywhere else in the trial, because that meeting is where the prosecutors say Mrs. Crumbley should have done something or taken her son."
Judge Cheryl Matthews pushed back on this claim, saying that Jennifer confirmed what happened in that meeting during her own testimony.
"There's no evidence contradicting what they said, and your client's testimony matches what they said," Matthews said.
Dezsi also expressed concerns that the prosecution did not share that Ejak and Hopkins would not be charged until after the Crumbleys were convicted.
"When you have an issue situation like this, these witnesses are going to do what they need to do. They're going to say, ‘Oh, I think they want me to be a little bit more helpful, I think they want me to establish this fact a little better,’" Dezsi said.
The other side:
Prosecutor Marc Keast argued that Ejak and Hopkins were not offered anything in exchange for their testimony.
"There was no immunity," he said. "Nothing was offered for testimony."
The prosecutor said that his office spoke to Ejak and Hopkins after the shooting but did not intend to call Ejak to the stand. The decision to subpoena him to testify was only made after Jennifer's attorney during trial, Shannon Smith, expressed that she was going to call him to the stand, Keast argued.
Keast also said that Jennifer was convicted based on evidence of her actions - not what Ejak or Hopkins said.
"Jennifer Crumbley was convicted based upon her level of gross negligence because she was the cause of these four deaths and because what her son did was reasonably foreseeable to her. Nobody else. Her," he said. "Their subjective thoughts and views of that meeting have zero bearing on this case."
Though Dezsi said the testimony from the school employees was key in getting a jury to convict Jennifer, Keast argued that it wasn't.
"Our prosecution never hinged upon any perceived or real liability on behalf of Shawn Hopkins or Nick Ejak," he said. "Should they be successfully sued or successfully prosecuted some point in the future, that would have zero impact on Jennifer Crumbley's convictions because she was convicted based upon what she didn't tell anybody, what she what she knew, what she didn't do."
What's next:
Matthews will review what was presented to her Friday and issue a rewritten response.
Jennifer Crumbley wants out of prison
The backstory:
Last month, Dezsi, filed an appeal to her sentence, saying that her trial was "riddled with errors." Issues raised in the appeal included the prosecution not disclosing agreements with key witnesses to jurors, publicity around the case, and Jennifer being convicted for not controlling her minor son, despite him being convicted as an adult.
However, on Thursday Matthews denied most of the motions filed by Dezsi. On Friday, she only heard arguments about the proffer agreements.
While the appeal is pending, Dezsi says Jennifer should be allowed to post bond and be released from prison because she "has committed no crime, has never harmed anyone, and is certainly not a flight risk."
He went on to call the prosecutors "overreaching," and said the case was the result of "attempts to pin the failings of a nation on the back of a parent."
According to Dezsi, sentencing guidelines recommended a sentence as short as 43 months, but Jennifer received more than a decade behind bars.
"Having Mrs. Crumbley locked up at the Michigan Department of Corrections' Women's Huron Valley facility not only casts a dark shadow over the justice system but rewards the prosecution of a fabricated crime, setting a very dangerous precedent," Dezsi said in a press release.
Dezsi argued that evidence was withheld from the trial, including information that two key witnesses who worked at the school entered into cooperation agreements to testify against Jennifer. According to Dezski, these agreements were not disclosed.
According to the appeal filing, the agreements should have been shared with the jury because Ejak and Hopkins interacted with the shooter the day of the crime, and had the chance to search his backpack before the shooting, but did not.
"These findings merely demonstrate why Hopkins and Ejak were given Proffer Agreements in the first place, because they had obvious criminal exposure," Dezsi wrote. "To the extent that these witnesses testified so as to shift blame away from themselves and onto the parents, the jury should have been made aware of those Proffer Agreements so that they could more accurately and fully assess their credibility."
Jennifer's defense believes knowledge of the agreements would have helped with cross-examining Ejak and Hopkins. However, the prosecution denies that the pair were offered anything to testify.
In the court filing, Dezsi wrote that the prosecution argued that Jennifer did not control her minor child. However, he noted that her child was convicted and sentenced as an adult.
"These theories are both factually inconsistent and mutually exclusive amounting to a violation of Mrs. Crumbley’s due process rights under both federal and state law," he wrote.
Dezsi also argued that the jury was told that they could convict Jennifer even if their verdict was not unanimous.
The other side:
After the appeal was filed, the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office responded to the appeal, saying in part that " James and Jennifer Crumbley are the rare, grossly negligent exception, and twenty-four jurors unanimously agreed that 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 Source: Information in this story is from previous FOX 2 reporting and court records.
Oakland County Prosecutor McDonald doesn't think Crumbley parents prosecution set precedent
The mass school shooting in Georgia echoes the 2021 Oxford incident - with allegations that the suspect's father was given the gun he used as a gift.