Latest news with #Crumbley
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Yahoo
Federal judge dismisses slew of Oxford High shooting civil suits
It appears hopes have been dashed for families suing Oxford Community Schools in federal court for negligence over the November 2021 shooting, as a slew of civil cases were closed this week. In a largely procedural move, a federal judge on Tuesday, May 20, dismissed several civil lawsuits claiming Oxford Community Schools' officials could have prevented the attack that left four students dead and seven others, including a teacher, injured. The dismissals were with prejudice, meaning the same case can't be filed again. The dismissal applies to cases filed by multiple students who survived gunshot wounds that day and family members of all the students who were killed: Hana St. Juliana, Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre and Justin Shilling. While it closes a heartbreaking and long legal chapter for the families fighting in federal court, the dismissal was expected. It follows a March 2025 opinion by a U.S. Court of Appeals 6th District Court judge finding that the plaintiffs did not provide enough evidence to show that school district officials were "so outrageous and so callous in their disregard" of the danger the shooter posed that it violated their constitutional rights. Following the tragedy at Oxford High School, a slew of family members of dead students, injured students and traumatized students filed suit, accusing district officials of negligence in preventing the shooting. The suits and criminal case against the shooter revealed a number of troubling incidents before he brought a gun to school and used it, according to court documents: An English teacher saw the shooter, Ethan Crumbley, looking at photos of bullets on his phone. He was referred to a school counselor, Shawn Hopkins. Crumbley told Hopkins it was a family hobby. On Nov. 30, the day of the shooting, another teacher saw Crumbley watching videos of shootings on his phone. The teacher also reported the behavior to Hopkins, while another teacher that same day reported that Crumbley on a worksheet had sketched the image of a gun, a person with gunshot wounds and had written, "blood everywhere," "my life is useless," and "the thoughts won't stop help me." Hopkins called Crumbley's parents to the school and said he needed immediate counseling. They said they could not take him from school and Hopkins threatened to call Children's Protective Services if they didn't get their son help in 48 hours. Hopkins and another school official returned Crumbley's backpack, which was where he'd stored his gun, and allowed the student to return to class. More: 12-year-old Oxford girl stuns in school shooting drama at Detroit Public Theatre Later, attorneys for the families of students killed in the shooting argued the inaction by district officials amounted to a violation of the 14th Amendment, which stipulates that Americans will not be deprived of "life, liberty or property" without due process. Attorneys for the school district and officials argued they were shielded from these claims through government immunity, which largely protects government officials in the case of civil lawsuits except for in extreme cases. As the cases continued to wind through the court system, family members complained in interviews with news organizations that such immunity clauses unfairly protected Oxford High staff members. More: Wayne County hiring specialist to monitor its teens on social media to prevent violence Christine Smith, a spokeswoman for the district, shared the following statement: "We are aware of the federal court's decision and understand that it may bring a range of emotions for our community. As always, our focus is on our students, staff, families, and the Oxford community as we are dedicated to fostering a safe, compassionate, and supportive environment for all. We remain deeply committed to supporting all who were impacted by this tragedy and want to remind our community that mental health resources and support are available for anyone who needs them at Contact Lily Altavena: laltavena@ This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Federal judge dismisses slew of Oxford High shooting civil suits
CBS News
11-04-2025
- CBS News
Oakland County judge hears arguments on James Crumbley's request for new trial
Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews sat in the courtroom for more than two hours to hear arguments from the prosecution and defense over James Crumbley's motion for a new trial. Crumbley, the father of the Oxford High School shooting, filed a motion in February , claiming that he did not receive a fair trial in the Nov. 30, 2021, mass shooting that killed four people and injured seven others. Defense attorney Alona Sharon alluded to alleged secret agreements made by prosecutors with two school officials, former Dean of Students Nicholas Ejak and school counselor Shawn Hopkins . Crumbley was not in court on Friday, but Sharon accused the prosecution of misconduct "that robbed him of meaningful cross-examination and a chance to expose to the jury the biases of Hopkins and Ejak." However, Oakland County Assistant Prosecutor Marc Keast argued that the school officials were not promised immunity and prosecutors were not obligated to send the agreements to Crumbley's team. Crumbley's appeal also questioned why his son, Ethan Crumbley, was not ordered to testify in his trial despite the teen invoking his Fifth Amendment Right. The motion accused the court of not further examining whether the teen's reason for not testifying was justified. On Friday, Matthews ultimately called for more time to deliberate before making a final decision. The judge says he will have a ruling in a month. The back-and-forth about the proffer agreements with Hopkins and Ejak remains at the forefront not only for James Crumbley but also for his wife, Jennifer Crumbley, who appealed her case and requested that Prosecutor Karen McDonald be removed from it . In her response to James Crumbley's motion, McDonald said the agreements "were created at the request of their counsel, and provided assurance to counsel that the statements made during the interview would not be used against the witnesses later." "Nowhere in the proffer agreements is there a 'plea agreement, grant immunity, or other agreement for testimony in connection with the case,'" McDonald wrote in her response earlier this week . James and Jennifer Crumbley were each charged and convicted of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the Nov. 30, 2021, deadly shooting at Oxford High School. The couple's son was sentenced to life in prison for the shooting. The Crumbleys made history as the first parents to be convicted for a mass shooting committed by their children. They were given separate trials that included testimonies from school officials, law enforcement and other witnesses. During the trials, the prosecution argued that the parents should be held partially responsible for the students' deaths because they ignored signs of their son's mental health needs and purchased the gun that was used in the shooting. The shooter was 15 years old at the time of the shooting.
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Yahoo
James Crumbley returns to court: I deserve a new trial, too
James Crumbley, the convicted father of the Oxford High School shooter, is due back in court Friday, hoping to convince a judge to give him a new trial or set aside his conviction, while the prosecution will push to keep him behind bars. At issue is whether Oakland County prosecutors unlawfully withheld from Crumbley the existence of proffer agreements that allegedly protected two of its star witnesses from being charged themselves over their actions before the Nov 30, 2021, shooting, if they agreed to testify. Crumbley argues he was entitled to this information, though the prosecution says it had no obligation to turn over the agreements, maintaining no immunity was offered to the two witnesses. James Crumbley also is questioning 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 pleaded guilty and been sentenced to life without parole in a separate proceeding. And Crumbley also wants to know why his defense attorney didn't object to the judge doing so. The bulk of his appeal for now, however, centers on the proffer agreements that the prosecution brokered with two school staffers as it built its historic case in 2021 against James and Jennifer Crumbley, who last year became the first parents in America to be held criminally responsible for a mass school shooting committed by their child. The prosecution won those convictions with the help of the two school witnesses who had signed the proffer agreements, which prevented anything they said to investigators from being used against them. The defense, however, didn't learn about these agreements until a week after James Crumbley was convicted when the Free Press discovered them and published an investigation. Jennifer Crumbley was the first to cite the proffer agreements as grounds for a retrial, or to have her conviction set aside, in a motion filed last year. Her husband soon followed suit. Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews has previously expressed concern over the prosecution's handling of the proffer agreements, stating that there's only one question she has to answer in deciding whether to grant retrials or throw out the convictions: "Do we now lack confidence about the verdict?" Jennifer and James Crumbley made history last year after separate juries convicted them of involuntary manslaughter for the deaths of four students killed by their son: Hana St. Juliana, 14; Tate Myre, 16; Justin Shilling, 17, and Madisyn Baldwin, 17. Six other students and a teacher also were injured. The Crumbleys were accused, in separate trials, of buying their son a gun, failing to properly secure it, and never disclosing it to the school during a pivotal meeting with school officials the morning of the shootings. They each are serving 10-15 year prison sentences. The Crumbleys maintain that they had no idea their son was planning to shoot up his school; that the gun at issue was not his to use freely, and that the gun — given to him as early Christmas gift — was hidden in a dresser, unloaded, with the bullets located in a separate drawer. The shooter was 15 at the time of the rampage. He, too, is appealing his conviction. The two 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 whether 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, has argued in court documents. "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." The prosecution has denied these assertions, maintaining Ejak and Hopkins testified because of subpoenas, not the proffer agreements. Moreover, it contends, the Crumbleys were convicted because of their own actions and inactions — nothing else. Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Marc Keast drove this point home at a previous hearing for Jennifer Crumbley, when he lambasted the embattled mother in court. "She was the cause of these four deaths ... nobody else judge, her," Keast said, referring to the four students who were killed in the shooting. Keast also defended the prosecution's handling of the trials and the proffer agreements. "There was no malfeasance by the prosecution," Keast said. He also reiterated a theme that prosecutors have long hammered at: The Crumbleys, more than anyone else, could have prevented this tragedy because they had information the school officials did not. "Jennifer Crumbley knew the background. Jennifer Crumbley had the opportunity to take him home. She could have checked the backpack, taken her son home from school," Keast argued at the mother's hearing, noting she did none of those things. According to trial testimony, neither did the father. "James Crumbley received a fair trial. As with Jennifer Crumbley, we believe the jury verdict in this case is correct and should be upheld," Jeff Wattrick, spokesperson for the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office, has previously stated. 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 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. The hearing begins at 9 a.m. Friday. Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@ This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: James Crumbley returns to court to argue for a retrial, or acquittal
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Yahoo
Nanticoke man charged after ramming police vehicles during chase
A 23-year-old Nanticoke man faces charges after officers said he struck police cars with his vehicle during a high-speed chase after fleeing a traffic stop. Members of the Lackawanna County Drug Task Force met with a confidential informant Thursday at about 1:50 p.m. to discuss heroin and crack cocaine sales, and the informant told officers about a man identified as 'Brail,' according to the criminal complaint. Officers conducted surveillance on Monahan Avenue in Dunmore and gave the informant money to purchase drugs, police said. The suspect — later identified as Jabrail Crumbley — arrived at the location in a Ford Explorer. Then, when the informant exited Crumbley's SUV, officers attempted to stop the vehicle for the narcotics transaction by using emergency lights and sirens with two fully marked patrol units and three unmarked patrol vehicles, according to the criminal complaint. Crumbley (Courtesy Lackawanna County Central Processing) Crumbley rammed his vehicle into police cars and led officers on a pursuit that ended on the Casey Highway, officers said. Throughout the pursuit, Crumbley ran his vehicle into police vehicles three times, according to the complaint. He also drove into oncoming traffic at speeds exceeding 100 mph, officers said. Crumbley was treated by medical personnel on scene and refused further treatment, police said. A Dunmore police officer suffered minor injuries and was sent to a hospital for evaluation after the chase led to a three-vehicle crash, according to the complaint. Officers obtained a search warrant for the vehicle after smelling a strong odor of marijuana, and found marijuana, codeine liquid, drug paraphernalia, packaging materials and three cellphones, along with the money used in the drug transaction, police said. The informant also turned over crack cocaine and heroin to police from the drug transaction, officers said. Police charged Crumbley with aggravated assault, fleeing or attempting to elude an officer, possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, criminal use of a communications facility and related counts. Additionally, Crumbley was driving with a suspended license stemming from a previous DUI charge, police said. As of Monday, Crumbley remained jailed at Lackawanna County Prison in lieu of $200,000 bail. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for April 3 at 9 a.m.
Yahoo
01-03-2025
- Yahoo
Like his wife, James Crumbley asks for new trial: Prosecution kept evidence from me, too
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: tbaldas@ This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: James Crumbley asks for new trial claiming prosecutorial misconduct
