Judge: Prosecutor broke the rules, but Crumbleys still not getting new trials

Yahoo

5 hours ago

Editor's note: This story has been updated with new information
A judge has denied James and Jennifer Crumbley new trials, concluding the parents of the Oxford school shooter both got fair trials even though prosecutors intentionally withheld from the defense secret agreements it struck with two key witnesses who testified against them.
In ruling against the Crumbleys, Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews on June 11 expressed concern with the prosecution not disclosing the agreements, stating: "The lack of disclosure which is mandatory ... is disturbing."
But, Matthews concluded, the prosecution's actions did not "rise to the level" to justify new trials, stressing that given the "significant" evidence facing the Crumbleys, the parents likely still would have ended up being convicted, even if they had been given the agreements brokered with the witnesses.
The Crumbleys, who made history last year after a jury held them responsible for the Nov. 30, 2021, Oxford High School massacre committed by their then-15-year-old son, were trying to get their involuntary manslaughter convictions dismissed, or new trials, based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct grounds.
Oakland County prosecutors have long argued that they engaged in no misconduct, and that the Crumbleys were convicted fair and square.
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald, who made history in holding the first parents in America criminally liable for a mass school shooting committed by their child, praised the judge for her decision.
'Today, Judge Cheryl Matthews upheld the guilty verdicts of James and Jennifer Crumbley and denied their requests for new trials,' McDonald said in a statement. 'These cases have always been about just one thing: justice for Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, Hana St. Juliana, Justin Shilling and the other Oxford victims. Judge Matthews' ruling makes clear that no issue raised by the defense affected the trial or the jury's verdict."
She continued: 'Now that the juries' verdicts have been reviewed and upheld, it is time to turn our attention away from the Crumbleys and refocus on the Oxford victims. The bottom line is both James and Jennifer Crumbley were convicted by juries of their peers after receiving a fair trial.'
The defense, however, isn't giving up as it blasted the judge's ruling and vowed a vigorous fight in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
"What a hypocritical example of justice," defense attorney Michael Dezsi, who represented Jennifer Crumbley in her appeal, said in a statement after the order came down.
At issue for Dezsi, he said, is that the judge concluded the prosecutors violated court rules, but let them get away with it.
'So, the prosecution intentionally cheated and violated the court rules, but they didn't cheat hard enough for the court to do anything about it,' Dezsi said in a June 11 statement after the ruling was issued. "Jennifer Crumbley was never going to get a fair trial in Oakland County as demonstrated by the court's actions in the last six months, and its decision finding the prosecutor's actions 'disturbing' but harmless should shock the public."
Dezsi added: "I will immediately appeal to a higher court the denial of Jennifer Crumbley's motion for bond pending appeal. The court's decision today (June 11) was only the first step in a lengthy appeal process that is only now just getting started. I am confident that a higher court will find the prosecutor's actions were not only disturbing but also grounds to overturn Jennifer Crumbley's conviction. This legal battle is just starting."
Alona Sharon, James Crumbley's lawyer, echoed similar concerns, saying she is "disappointed" with the judge's decision and the message it sends.
"Judge Matthews found that Karen McDonald and her office violated a discovery rule that is designed to guarantee the right to a fair trial and due process. But, despite their intentional violations they will pay no price," Sharon said in a statement. "This opinion writes a blank check permitting prosecutors throughout the state to skirt the rules and laws that that are designed to ensure integrity in our justice system. And, that consequence should terrify everyone."
At issue in this contentious legal battle is whether the prosecution unlawfully withheld from the defense confidential agreements that it reached with two key school witnesses who were promised early on that their statements to investigators would not be used against them, and who later testified against the Crumbleys at their trials.
The agreements — known as proffer agreements — offered some immunity to the two school officials and key witnesses in the Crumbleys' historic trials: They were promised that whatever statements they made to investigators would not be used against them.
Attorneys for the Crumbleys had argued that those agreements should have been provided to the defense before trial, which would have allowed the defense to argue to jurors that the school witnesses were under the threat of prosecution themselves, and therefore not credible. But the jury never got to hear that.
The two school witnesses were the dean of students and a counselor — the last two officials who spoke with the shooter and the parents on the morning before the massacre, and made the controversial decision to let him return to class despite the teen's troubling behavior: He had drawn a gun on a piece of paper, a human body bleeding and the words, "The thought's won't stop. Help me."
The defense argued both school witnesses tailored their testimony to make the parents look bad, and protect themselves in the process. But they were already protected by the proffer agreements, they argued, only the defense didn't learn about the agreements until the Free Press disclosed them in an investigation last March, after the shooter's parents both had been convicted in separate trials.
The prosecution has argued that it was under no obligation to provide the proffer agreements to the defense because — it maintains — no immunity was provided. Prosecutors also long argued that it was the Crumbleys, more than anyone else, who could have prevented the massacre had they done the "smallest of things," like put a cable lock on the gun that their son snuck out of the house and used to shoot up his school, tell the school officials that their son had access to a gun when they were summoned over his troubling behavior, or taken him home from school when they saw his drawing with the troubling message: "The thought's won't stop. Help me."
The Crumbleys though, went back to their jobs after seeing that message. Their son went back to class, with school officials concluding he wasn't a threat to himself or anyone else. Two hours later, he fired his first shot.
In the end, prosecutors argued to the jurors, it was the Crumbleys' own actions and inactions that would cost four students their lives: Tate Myre, 16; Hana St. Juliana, 14; Madisyn Baldwin, 17, and Justin Shilling, 17.
As McDonald said in her closing arguments at the dad's trial:
"Remember that he didn't just fail in his duty to his son ... he failed in his duty to protect Hana, and Justin and Madisyn and Tate. I don't say their names to evoke sympathy. I say their names because they matter. They matter!" McDonald said, her voice growing loud.
"And that is why we are here ... because if James Crumbley had done even the smallest of things, like the 10-second cable lock or gone home or took responsibility for his kid who was in trouble, those kids wouldn't have been shot and killed in that school on that day."
More: Defense: Prosecutor paid 3rd PR firm thousands to 'smear' the Crumbleys
Jennifer and James Crumbley have long argued that they had no idea their son was going to shoot up his school, that they saw no signs that their son was mentally ill, that gun at issue was hidden in an armoire unloaded, and that the bullets were stored in another drawer.
The shooter pleaded guilty to all his crimes and is serving a life-without-parole sentence. He also is appealing.
Contact Tresa Baldas: [e-mail]
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Judge denies parents of Oxford school shooter new trials