Prosecutor: Jennifer Crumbley is a greater flight risk now more than ever
In a June 20 filing with the appeals court, the prosecution argues that Jennifer Crumbley cannot be trusted to be free, especially at this stage of the game when she has already been convicted and sentenced, and the "presumption of innocence no longer applies." Crumbley was convicted and sentenced last year to 10-15 years in prison for the deaths of four students murdered by her son in the Nov. 30, 2021, mass shooting at Oxford High School. Letting her out now, the prosecution argues, is too risky, especially given her actions in the days following the shooting.
Prosecutors allege the shooter's parents fled their home and hid from authorities in a building in Detroit to avoid prosecution over their actions, and inactions.
"(Crumbley) has been a flight risk from the moment she was charged," Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Joseph Shada writes in a June 20 filing with the court of appeals, alleging Crumbley "presents a greater flight risk" now, more "than ever."
According to the prosecution, in the days after the shooting, Jennifer and James Crumbley, the shooter's parents, hid out in an art studio in a commercial building in Detroit, where they were discovered by police following a massive manhunt.
"(The parents) liquated their assets, emptied their son's bank account, abandoned a vehicle, bought burner phones, and traveled 30 to 40 miles to hide in a commercial building in Detroit," Shada writes, adding the couple also tried to hide the license plate when they parked their car outside the building they were hiding in.
According to trial testimony, a 911 tipster spotted the couple's car and called authorities.
"Despite the overwhelming police presence, the mass of flashing lights, and the sound of doors being broken down, the defendants did not surrender themselves, but pretended to be asleep," Shada writes. "Their deceit was laid bare when text messages from defendants came to light showing that they suspected they had been found and were 'laying low.' "
Flight risk allegations aside, the prosecution also argues that Crumbley's appeal has no merit.
"A jury unanimously found that defendant was grossly negligent, and her gross negligence was a cause of the four deaths in the Oxford High School shooting. She was properly convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter," Shada writes, adding her "request for bond pending appeal should be denied."
The prosecution's filing comes four days after the defense asked the court of appeals to release Crumbley on bond pending the outcome of her appeal, maintaining she is no threat to anyone, and that her appeal raises a "substantial question of law or fact." Perhaps most notably, it has argued, is that a judge has concluded that the prosecution intentionally withheld evidence from the defense during and before trial, yet let that misconduct slide in denying Crumbley a retrial.
Additionally, the defense insists that the alleged fugitive story is not true, maintaining that the couple were never on the run, but only hiding out of fear due to death threats they were receiving. Perhaps more importantly, the defense says, the couple had plans to turn themselves in — with their lawyers — and the prosecutor knew this.
But the prosecutor still launched a manhunt for the couple and declared them fugitives, the defense argues in court filings, despite knowing of the couple's surrender plans.
In a court filing this week, Crumbley's appellate lawyer Michael Dezsi cites a text message that Crumbley's trial lawyer had sent Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald in 2021, telling her of plans "to walk the Crumbleys in to be booked and process." It was sent at 6:53 p.m. on Dec. 2, 2021.
Prosecutor McDonald texted back: 'Ok, Let's talk in the morning.' "
There was no such morning conversation, trial testimony shows. Instead, that following day, a SWAT team was amassed and a manhunt was launched, ending with the arrest of the Crumbleys in an art studio at about 1 a.m. on Dec. 4, 2021.
"So why didn't the prosecution work with counsel to allow the Crumbleys to walk into a police station for processing?" Dezsi writes. "Seemingly, the prosecution was motivated by a desire to sensationalize the Crumbleys arrest as part and parcel of its broad ranging public relations 'smear campaign' that started in the hours following the incident.'
Dezsi also urged the appeals court not to "give weight" to prior bond decisions involving Crumbley, who was denied bond at least eight times pending the outcome of her trial.
Dezsi argues the standards for bond pretrial are different from on appeal. Specifically, he says, the only two legal standards that Crumbley must meet to be released on bond pending her appeal are proving she is not a danger to society, and that her appeal raises "a substantial question of law or fact."
Dezsi maintains Crumbley meets both standards.
"Mrs. Crumbley is not a danger to the public," Dezsi writes, adding she's also not a flight risk, despite the prosecution's assertions. And if the court has any flight risk concerns, he writes, it can address those by placing an electronic monitoring device on Crumbley.
"The prosecution's main objection to Mrs. Crumbley's instant bond motion is that she is a 'flight risk.' … Nowhere in its response brief does the prosecution argue that Mrs. Crumbley poses a danger to others. Because she does not," Dezsi writes.
More: Judge: Prosecutor broke the rules, but Crumbleys still not getting new trials
Jennifer and James Crumbley made history last year after separate juries convicted both parents of involuntary manslaughter, concluding the couple's actions and inactions led to the deaths of four students murdered by their son: Tate Myre, 16; Hana St. Juliana, 14; Madisyn Baldwin, 17, and Justin Shilling, 17. Six other students and a teacher also were injured.
Prosecutors argued at trial that the Crumbleys, more than anyone else, could have prevented the massacre had they done even the "smallest of things," like lock up the gun that their son snuck out of their home and used to shoot up his school, tell school officials that he had access to a gun, or brought him home from school after being notified about his troubling behavior on the morning before the shooting, when he drew a picture of a gun, a bleeding human body, and scrawled the words: "The thoughts won't stop, help me."
After seeing the cryptic message during a meeting with school officials on the morning of the shootings, the Crumbleys returned to their jobs and promised to get their son help within 48 hours. Their son returned to class after school officials concluded he was no threat to himself, or others. His backpack, which contained the gun, was never searched. Two hours later, he fired his first shot.
The Crumbleys maintain they had no idea their son planned to shoot up his school, never saw signs that he was mentally ill — despite prosecutors claiming otherwise — and that the gun at issue was hidden in their bedroom armoire, unloaded, with the bullets hidden in another drawer.
More: Jennifer Crumbley appeals to higher court: I'm no threat. Release me on bond
The shooter, who was 15 at the time of the massacre, pleaded guilty to all his crimes and is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. He also is appealing.
Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas:@freepress.com
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Prosecution fights to keep Oxford school shooter's mom locked up
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
29 minutes ago
- CNN
Sha'Carri Richardson addresses domestic violence arrest and apologizes to Christian Coleman
Sprinter Sha'Carri Richardson addressed her recent domestic violence arrest in a video on social media and issued an apology to her boyfriend Christian Coleman. Richardson posted a video on her Instagram account Monday night in which she said she put herself in a 'compromised situation.' She issued a written apology to Coleman on Tuesday morning. 'I love him & to him I can't apologize enough,' the reigning 100-meter world champion wrote in all capital letters on Instagram, adding that her apology 'should be just as loud' as her 'actions.' 'To Christian I love you & I am so sorry,' she wrote. Richardson was arrested July 27 on a fourth-degree domestic violence offense for allegedly assaulting Coleman at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. She was booked into South Correctional Entity in Des Moines, Washington, for more than 18 hours. Her arrest was days before she ran the 100 meters at the US championships in Eugene, Oregon. In the video, Richardson said she's practicing 'self-reflection' and refuses 'to run away but face everything that comes to me head on.' According to the police report, an officer at the airport was notified by a Transportation Security Administration supervisor of a disturbance between Richardson and her boyfriend, Coleman, the 2019 world 100-meter champion. The officer reviewed camera footage and observed Richardson reach out with her left arm and grab Coleman's backpack and yank it away. Richardson then appeared to get in Coleman's way with Coleman trying to step around her. Coleman was shoved into a wall. Later in the report, it said Richardson appeared to throw an item at Coleman, with the TSA indicating it may have been headphones. The officer said in the report: 'I was told Coleman did not want to participate any further in the investigation and declined to be a victim.' A message was left with Coleman from The Associated Press. Richardson wrote that Coleman 'came into my life & gave me more than a relationship but a greater understanding of unconditional love from what I've experienced in my past.' She won the 100 at the 2023 world championships in Budapest and finished with the silver at the Paris Games last summer. She also helped the 4x100 relay to an Olympic gold. She didn't compete during the Tokyo Olympics in 2021 following a positive marijuana test at the US Olympic trials.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump can't accept bad news. Here's how that hurts the First Amendment
As August unfolds in one of the warmest summers on record, a chill is coming from the White House that should give us all pause because the whiff of authoritarianism hangs over the Capitol — and the rest of the land. And it is not just from the National Guard being put on the streets in Washington, D.C. On Aug. 1, the federal Labor Department issued a monthly jobs report showing the weakest pace of hiring for any three-month period since the pandemic recession in 2020. Yes, 73,000 jobs were added in July, but it was far below expectations. Was the Trump economy tanking only seven months after he took office? The president, who cannot accept bad news, even if true, proceeded to fire Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the long-time commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He accused her of manipulating the monthly jobs report for 'political purposes,' a tactic virtually impossible in that world of computer-generated numbers. 'The Economy is BOOMING under 'TRUMP,'' the President insisted. Of course. Why not just prove it with the statistics as a free and open discussion would suggest. Truth will rise to the top, no? But, instead, the President turned to silencing his critic: 'You're fired!" Who in the Labor Department will dare to tell the real truth now about the economy? Gagging or punishing people for their speech 'chills' everyone from speaking out or from daring to criticize the Great Wizard behind the curtain. Trump is embarking more boldly on backdoor censorship Of course, the CEO of any big company has the right to fire people, even with baseless accusations. But the real issue here is the method in his madness. Backdoor censorship like Trump's has the same deleterious effect as cutting off the tongue of the speaker you don't like. I use the word 'chill' purposely because when we discuss the First Amendment we think of two things: the first, that 'Congress shall make no law…' means just that. Laws cannot be passed to stop someone from talking, or punish someone for their opinion, or tell them things they cannot say. Government cannot, most prominently, block people or organizations from expressing their opinions and points of view. 'For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas,' reminded the Supreme Court in a famous 1988 case. The law on speech banning is clear and inviolable. Trump knows enough to stay away from that, at least so far. But what he still wants to do — and not break the law — is control what people say, particularly their criticism of him, his policies and things that lurk around like the Epstein scandal that has a serious chance of ruining him. Which brings us to the 'spirit of the First Amendment.' And this is different. Trump consistently violates the spirit of the law which is this: We'll be an open society, where people feel free to disagree with each other and criticize their leaders and their government, even when they work for that government. The framers of the constitution envisioned this moment, fearing the person in power would silence the opposing political party and the critics. That's what the First Amendment protects. You can dissent. You can even say terrible things about the government. But this president doesn't care. Just look around; the attacks on the spirit of free speech come out of this White House faster than you can say Rosie O'Donnell. The day before the jobs report irked the president, some flunky at the Smithsonian, in either an adolescent attempt to please the Boss or under pressure from his minions, removed information from those hallowed historical halls about two impeachments in Trump's first term. Two days later the White house promised to restore them. A violation of the law? Probably not. But it reeks of covering up misdeeds and history, more akin to the Kremlin than to the 45 words of the First Amendment which aims for openness, candor and civil discussions. But if you bury the bodies, perhaps no one will know — or remember. Trump keeps reminding us of what he is capable of. It gets better — or worse What can we learn from the Colbert cancellation? Dating back to the early 1960s, late-night comedians like Johnny Carson filled the airwaves with political satire, ripping into Nixon and the break-in, Ronald Reagan's hairdresser, Gerald Ford's bumbling ways on the golf course. And the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was a bonanza. Every President took his lumps. The tradition continues today as late-night hosts Jimmy Fallon on NBC, Jimmy Kimmel on ABC and Jon Stewart on the Comedy Channel pummel him nightly. Perhaps it's worse for Trump — because he gives them so much raw material and because a comic barb can go viral on social media. Some commentators think more harm is done to him with the liberty of comedic license than from the mainstream press with its fetish on facts first. But now comes the multi-layered debacle of Stephen Colbert, CBS' top-rated late-night host whose relentless lampooning of MAGA incensed the president. Colbert, on for 11 years, was canceled after pressure from the president as the network — once the beacon of TV news — cut a deal to ensure approval of a big corporate merger which needed Trump approval. Some background: On Dec. 14, 2024, CBS settled a $15 million defamation lawsuit with Trump over the editing of a '60 minutes' episode. Experts I've talked to were flabbergasted, asserting there's little chance Trump could have won. Defamation laws favor the press. But CBS caved. Why? CBS, owned by Paramount, wanted to merge with media giant Skydance but needed Federal Trade Commission OK. But everything is transactional for Trump: hand us the head of Colbert and you can have your merger. Simple. And they complied. Edward R. Murrow turned in his grave. Trump is smart like a fox or cunning like a wolf, but it comes back to the First Amendment. The spirit of the law has been profoundly violated. Comic satire has great value. Even the Supreme Court noted this when it protected a ribald cartoon that lampooned the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Said the Court, 'Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate.' And we accept such satire and criticism as just a part of a free society. Lyndon Johnson was virtually hounded out of office over his Vietnam policies in the mid-1960s. The cartoonists and TV hosts had a field day with his big ears and his unpopular policies. He was obsessed with coverage of his administration with three television sets blaring in his office at the same time. Still, LBJ understood the spirit of the First Amendment, saying: "It is part of the price of leading this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists. None of us should grow so somber or self-important as to deny the value of humor in our lives." Donald Trump is not laughing. His scowl is fouling the spirit of freedom of speech. If he gets away with backdoor censorship, you can be sure he will be knocking at the front door of democracy soon enough. Rob Miraldi's First Amendment writing has won numerous awards. He taught journalism at the State University of New York for many years. Email: This article originally appeared on Trump's mistruths hurt freedom of speech | Opinion
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'This is unbelievable.' Framingham MA murderer is denied parole for fourth time
A former Framingham man who killed a teenaged girl after attempting to rape her in 1996 will remain in prison until at least next year. Damien Lockhart, 51, was denied parole after the state Parole Board deadlocked, 3-3, on his latest request. A majority vote is required for parole to be granted. 'It's just unreal, I can't believe it,' Bolton's aunt, Carol Young, said of the vote. 'Nothing surprises me anymore.' The Parole Board normally has seven members. But due to a resignation in May, one seat is currently vacant. Lockhart killed Kimberly Jane Bolton, 17, on Aug. 10, 1996. A year later, he was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted rape. Lockhart testified during a previous parole hearing that he had wanted to cheat on his girlfriend after getting into an argument with her. He met Bolton in Framingham shortly afterward, and convinced her to go to an area near the Waverly Street train station called 'The Weeds.' Earlier: Framingham man goes before Parole Board to ask for release Once the two were there, Lockhart attempted to initiate sex. When Bolton refused, he tried to rape her. When she fought back, Lockhart bashed her in the head with a rock. He then dragged her to another area of the weeds and then slammed a rock on her head seven more times to make sure she was dead. He's been denied parole four times — but is eligible again next year Lockhart testified in 2018 that he killed Bolton because she said she was going to call the police. He said he had used crack cocaine just prior to the incident. Lockhart has now been denied parole four times. Before his latest appeal, which was argued before the parole board on March 4, his last denial occurred in 2023. In the board's decision, on July 29, it credited Lockhart for the work he has done to improve himself since his last hearing. During the hearing, two of Lockhart's family members testified on his behalf, while four of Bolton's family members and a Middlesex assistant district attorney testified against his release. 'Since his last hearing, he has engaged in rehabilitative programing and correspondence courses related to criminogenic factors,' according to the board ruling. 'The board notes programing related to victim empathy would be beneficial.' Because the Parole Board's vote was 3-3, Lockhart is again eligible to request release next year, a fact that angers Bolton's family, Young said. 'We have to go back in March,' she said. 'This is unbelievable. It's not right.' Norman Miller can be reached at 508-626-3823 or nmiller@ For up-to-date public safety news, follow him on X @Norman_MillerMW. This article originally appeared on MetroWest Daily News: Framingham man denied parole for 1996 murder of teen girl