Like his wife, James Crumbley asks for new trial: Prosecution kept evidence from me, too

Yahoo

01-03-2025

Like his wife, James Crumbley, the convicted father of the Oxford High School shooter, is asking for a new trial, alleging the prosecution unlawfully withheld from him proffer agreements that allegedly protected two of its star witnesses from being charged themselves over their actions.
Additionally, Crumbley also is raising an issue involving why his son wasn't ordered to testify in his trial. Instead, the judge allowed his son to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, despite the fact that the son had already been convicted and sentenced to life without parole after pleading guilty in a separate proceeding. And Crumbley also wants to know why his defense attorney didn't object to the judge doing so.
But the bulk of his motion for a new trial involves the proffer agreements that the prosecutor's office brokered with two school staff witnesses as it built its historic case against the shooter's parents. At issue are the so-called proffer agreements that protected two school officials from having anything they said to investigators used against them.
Those proffer agreements were disclosed in a Free Press investigation last year, six days after James Crumbley was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for his role in his son's Nov. 30, 2021, rampage, which killed four students and injured seven others, including a teacher. His wife, Jennifer Crumbley, who was convicted of the same crime last year, also is asking for a new trial on the same grounds.
Both Crumbleys are serving a 10-15 year prison sentence for — as two separate juries concluded — failing to properly secure a gun that their son snuck out of the house and used to shoot up his school, and for failing to control their minor son from harming the students at Oxford.
The shooter, who was 15 at the time of the shooting, pleaded guilty to all of his crimes and is serving a life sentence without parole. He also is appealing.
His parents, meanwhile, are now trying to get a new trial, alleging that the prosecution engaged in misconduct by allegedly not disclosing that two of its star witnesses had been offered the proffer agreements. The defense and the jury should have been made aware, they argue.
The school officials at issue are former school counselor Shawn Hopkins and former Dean of Students Nicholas Ejak, who made the controversial decision to let the shooter return to class, despite getting multiple warnings about his behavior in the days and hours before the massacre. They also never searched his backpack — which contained the gun — or asked his parents if he had access to a gun, or instructed his parents to take him home after finding a cryptic drawing he had made of a gun, a human body bleeding and the words, "The thoughts won't stop. Help me."
"The fact that the men insisted on proffer agreements prior to speaking with the prosecution indicates that neither man had any interest in assisting the prosecution without protection," Alona Sharon, James Crumbley's appellate attorney, argued in a Friday filing.
"While it is true that Hopkins and Ejak spoke to authorities on the day of the shooting, it is also clear that once the shock of the event wore off the men shifted to worrying about self-preservation. It was their concern about their own wellbeing that led the men to secure counsel and then demand proffer agreements in exchange for information that they could provide," Sharon writes. "What should be clear to this court is that without the signed proffer agreements, Hopkins and Ejak had no intention of testifying at trial or cooperating with the prosecution."
In a statement Friday, Jeffrey Wattrick, public information officer for the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office, defended the prosecution's handling of the case.
"James Crumbley received a fair trial. As with Jennifer Crumbley, we believe the jury verdict in this case is correct and should be upheld," Wattrick stated. "We are currently reviewing his appeal filing. Our office will respond in accordance with the court rules."
Rubin: Jennifer Crumbley is still guilty, but the jury is out on the prosecution
Oxford High officials were assured they wouldn't be prosecuted in mass shooting
The Crumbleys, meanwhile, are echoing each other's arguments as they hope to convince Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews to give them a new trial. At a hearing for Jennifer Crumbley earlier this month, Matthews expressed concern over the proffer agreements, and said her main job is to answer this question:
"Do we now lack confidence about the verdict?" she said.
Both Crumbleys argue that without the proffer agreements, the two school officials would not have testified.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Marc Keast disagreed, saying Ejak and Hopkins testified because of subpoenas, not the proffer agreements. He also argued that Jennifer Crumbley was convicted fair and square over her actions and inactions, and that no immunity was ever granted to Hopkins and Ejak. Therefore, he argued, the proffer agreements did not have to be turned over.
This is the latest turn of events in the ongoing legal saga of the Crumbleys, who maintain the prosecution intentionally withheld these agreements from them because they knew revealing them could hurt their case.
The defense and multiple legal experts also disagree with the prosecution's contention that it did not have to disclose the proffer agreements, saying any agreement — whether a wink or a nod or in writing — must be disclosed. And in this case, the Crumbley appellate lawyers argue, the proffer agreements did protect the school officials from being charged over their actions before the shooting, only the jury never got to hear that.
"Our federal courts have repeatedly recognized that proffer letters or agreements, such as the one in the instant case, bestow upon a witness an informal grant of immunity," Sharon writes, noting "the proffer agreements for both Hopkins and Ejak contained identical relevant language."
Specifically, Sharon writes, the agreements provided that the purpose of the proffer included an opportunity for the prosecutor's office 'to receive truthful information from [Hopkins or Ejak], including information about possible criminal activity by [Hopkins/Ejak] and others.' "There is no ambiguity, the proffer agreements extended immunity to both Hopkins and Ejak," Sharon writes, maintaining under court rules, "the prosecution was required, upon demand, to disclose the agreements."
"Any argument to the contrary is intellectually dishonest and ignores the plain language of the court rule and the proffer agreements," Sharon writes, later adding: "When this Honorable Court properly evaluates the relevant considerations it can reach only one conclusion: James Crumbley is entitled to a new trial."
The Crumbleys' new lawyers maintain that by concealing the proffer agreements, the prosecution denied the defense the opportunity to question and potentially expose the "bias and motive" of the two school witnesses to testify favorably for the prosecution.
Ejak and Hopkins were the last two people to meet with the shooter and his parents before the shooting occurred. According to trial testimony, the school counselor had received multiple warnings from teachers about the shooter's behavior in the days before the shooting: He was researching bullets on his cellphone in class and watching a video of someone gunning people down another time. Perhaps most troublesome was the cryptic gun drawing he made on his math worksheet, along with the words, "The thoughts won't stop. Help me."
The parents were summoned to the counselor's office over that drawing, and met with their son, Ejak and Hopkins. The two school officials told the parents that their son appeared to be sad, but that they did not think he was a danger to himself or anyone else. They concluded that the boy would be better off in class with his friends than at home alone.
The parents went back to their jobs. Their son went back to class. Two hours later, he fired his first shot.
The defense maintains that the jury had a right to know that the school officials, in their testimony, were trying to lay the entire blame on the Crumbleys because they feared getting charged themselves.
"The prosecution's concealment denied James Crumbley the critical opportunity to expose the bias and motive of Hopkins and Ejak to testify favorably for the prosecution," Sharon writes, adding that's a violation of Crumbley's right to confront his accuser.
According to Sharon's filing, the prosecution on 34 separate occasions offered discovery materials, or evidence, to the defense. But not once were the proffer agreements disclosed, Sharon argues, maintaining this "failure was willful and an intentional violation" of the court rules.
Contact Tresa Baldas: [e-mail]
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: James Crumbley asks for new trial claiming prosecutorial misconduct