DETROIT — An Oakland County judge has denied a request from the Oxford High School shooter's mother to have her involuntary manslaughter case dismissed or to be granted a new trial, but will hear arguments Friday about whether prosecutors should have given defense attorneys agreements they made with two key school witnesses.

In a written order issued Thursday, Judge Cheryl Matthews acknowledged the historic nature of the case against Jennifer Crumbley, but said even though her son was charged as an adult but was considered a minor child in the involuntary manslaughter case against her, that's allowed under Michigan law and there were "differing degrees of culpability."

"The reality is that the shooter was treated as an adult for murder charges but considered Defendant's minor child for involuntary manslaughter charges," Matthews wrote. "Charging the shooter as an adult for first-degree murder, and charging the Defendant with involuntary manslaughter, reflect differing degrees of culpability and nothing about the shooter's culpability for his own acts exculpates the Defendant for her own separate acts."

An Oakland County jury convicted Crumbley of four counts of involuntary manslaughter in February last year, marking the first time in the United States a parent was convicted with manslaughter for a mass shooting carried out by his or her child. Matthews sentenced her to 10-15 years in prison. A separate jury also convicted her husband, James.

But Michael Deszi, Crumbley's appellate attorney, argued in early December that the guilty verdict should be thrown out and his client should be given a new trial because of ineffective trial counsel; agreements prosecutors made with two key witnesses from Oxford schools that weren't shared with her attorney and raise questions about their credibility; and that she owed "no legal duty to the victims of her son's acts."

Matthews shall hear arguments Friday on whether Crumbley is entitled to an acquittal or a new trial based on the alleged discovery violations by prosecutors for not giving defense attorneys copies of so-called proffer agreements they made with Oxford High School counselor Shawn Hopkins and former Dean of Students Nick Ejak. Both met with Ethan Crumbley and his parents the morning of the 2021 shooting. She declined to hear arguments on all other aspects of Crumbley's appeal, and ruled against them.

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald allowed Ejak and Hopkins to sign the agreements, which noted that she would consider the statements made by them 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."

Prosecutors never gave the proffer agreements to Crumbley's defense attorney, Shannon Smith, Dezsi wrote. The news of the agreements came out less than a week after Jennifer's husband, James Crumbley, was convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter.

The day after James Crumbley was convicted, McDonald said she would not charge any Oxford school officials with crimes related to the shooting. Less than a week later, news of the proffer agreements came to light.

Four students were killed in November 2021 shooting: Hana St. Juliana, 14; Justin Shilling, 17; Tate Myre, 16; and Madisyn Baldwin, 16.

Prosecutors said Crumbley acted in a grossly negligent way in storing a gun and ammunition where her son could access it and that she failed to control her child to keep him from harming others.

Dezsi, Crumbley's attorney, has argued the proffer agreements could have been used to better cross-examine Hopkins and Ejak and would have allowed Smith to point out to the jury that they had motive, bias and personal interest in helping prosecutors convict Crumbley. And if the jury had been aware of them, they could have used them to weigh the credibility of Hopkins and Ejak, he wrote.

"These witnesses were in the proverbial hot seat hoping to avoid criminal prosecution for their acts and omissions related to the shooting," Deszi wrote.

Prosecutors have maintained that they had no duty to share the proffer agreements because they did not make any promises of immunity, which Dezsi said was an erroneous conclusion. In a press release March 20, 2024, the prosecutor's office wrote there "was never an implicit or explicit promise of immunity, leniency, or favoritism of any kind."

“No witnesses were given anything for their testimony, and there was no immunity — these witnesses testified without any promises or protection whatsoever. The Michigan Court of Appeals has already reviewed the legal issues raised by Jennifer Crumbley and rejected them," said Chief Assistant Prosecutor David Williams in a statement in December.

Williams said March 20 that "the only purpose of the agreement is to allow the witness to have an initial meeting with the prosecution without fear that their statements in that meeting will be used to criminally charge them." Ejak and Hopkins testified under oath without any promises or protection, Williams said.

As far as Deszi's other arguments, Matthews said the law in Michigan does allow for prosecutors to call the shooter a child for his parents' trial and charge him as an adult at the same time, despite Dezsi's arguments that prosecutors could not argue both theories.

Matthews also declined to hear arguments on Crumbley's argument that she owed no legal duty to the victims of the shooting, noting that she believes the law says Crumbley did have to use ordinary care to avoid injury to someone. Her duty existed alongside the duty of the school officials to protect Oxford students, Matthews wrote.

Matthews also found Crumbley failed to show that her trial attorney was ineffective.

Matthews' Thursday order does not mention a supplemental request for Crumbley to be released from prison while the appeals in her case are pending.

_____

©2025 www.detroitnews.com. Visit at detroitnews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.