In a first-of-its-kind trial, the mother of a school shooter has been found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter in the deadly Nov. 30, 2021, shooting at Oxford High School in Michigan.
The jury was tasked to decide whether the shooting was reasonably foreseeable by Mrs. Crumbley and therefore preventable.
The jury returned the verdict more than two years after Jennifer Crumbley’s then-15-year-old son killed four students and injured six others and a teacher with the 9 mm handgun she and her husband James purchased as a gift for him four days prior.
Her husband will also face trial for the same charges in March.
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald filed involuntary manslaughter charges against the parents in the days after the shooting, alleging that they did not pull the trigger but were responsible because of gross negligence.
The charges led to a manhunt that located the couple in a Detroit commercial building, approximately 30 miles from their home and the school, which are in Oxford, Michigan.
Prosecutors argued that the parents were neglectful even on the day of the shooting, alleging that they failed to intervene that morning despite being called in for a meeting at the school when a drawing of a gun, a bullet, and chilling messages such as “blood everywhere” were found on a class assignment.
Their son was not taken home following this meeting and was allowed to return to class, just hours before he pulled the gun out of his backpack and turned it on his classmates.
Several civil cases have also been filed against Oxford Community Schools for alleged shortfalls leading to the shooting.
The charges against the Crumbleys are the first time the parents of a school shooter have been charged criminally in the United States.
The prosecutor argued that they were guilty of the deaths and injuries committed by their son as they failed to perform a legal duty as parents and acted in a grossly negligent way.
In reading instructions to the jury, Judge Cheryl Matthews stated that Michigan law defines legal duty as parents acting “to exercise reasonable care to control their minor child so as to prevent the minor child from intentionally harming others or prevent the minor child from conducting themselves in a way that creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others.”
To prove they failed to act on their legal duty, she added, the parent must “know or have reason to know they have the ability to control their minor child and the parent knows of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.”
One main argument of the prosecution was that the gun was readily accessible to their son. The defense argued that the gun was hidden and ammunition hidden separately, with Mrs. Crumbley saying it was secured with a cable lock.
Although they did purchase the gun as a gift for their son, evidenced by an Instagram post by the mother herself, the defense argued that they purchased it for him to use at a shooting range and he did not have unfettered access to it.
The prosecution also argued that the parents had a legal duty to tell the school they had bought him a gun after they were called to the school regarding him drawing a gun on a class assignment on the morning of the shooting.
The trial saw several verbal spats between the prosecution, defense, and judge, particularly over evidence that had been excluded at the request of the defense in the pre-trial phase.
Ms. Smith, in cross-examination of a former “friend” of Mrs. Crumbley, asked questions that led to the jury being dismissed and the prosecution lambasting her for teetering on the edge of introducing evidence that the defense had previously sought to keep from the jury.
The questions led to the introduction of an extramarital affair between the friend and Mrs. Crumbley after the defense agreed “the door had been opened” and Ms. Smith sought to continue with her line of questioning regarding the affair.
The prosecution said the move fundamentally changed the case, with evidence now being used to further their argument that Mrs. Crumbley wilfully neglected her son to focus on her affair, as well as a litany of evidence regarding her spending much time and money on her equestrian hobbies.
Flight and Attorney-Client Privilege
There were also tensions over Mrs. Crumbley bringing up her attorney while testifying—in regard to the prosecution’s argument that the Crumbleys were attempting to flee after being charged.Mrs. Crumbley’s attorney argued throughout the trial that they were planning on turning themselves in the morning after they were captured, though the prosecution argued against this, introducing various pieces of evidence, including text messages sent between Mrs. Crumbley and her attorney Shannon Smith.
Mrs. Crumbley said on the stand that at the advice of their attorney, they were planning to turn themselves in the following morning. Ms. Smith repeatedly argued that she had attempted to reach Ms. McDonald to arrange a time for the defendants to surrender safely, but that the lead prosecutor would not return her communications.
“I was waiting for instructions from you,” Mrs. Crumbley said on the stand, alleging that the Crumbleys were told by their counsel that they would be allowed to turn themselves in on Dec. 4, 2021, the morning after they were taken into custody in Detroit.
The prosecution alleged that Mrs. Crumbley’s bringing up communication with her attorney in her testimony potentially waived some of her attorney-client privileges. They requested that the judge review evidence in camera privately for a limited review of the issue of flight.
Text messages between the client and attorney were wiped before being given to any party during discovery. However, an attorney in the prosecutor’s office said he accidentally came across a screenshot of a text message screenshot between Mrs. Crumbley and her attorneys that had been included in photographic evidence.
They said a timestamp on the text called into question the time frames that Mrs. Crumbley had testified about earlier and could be used to further their case that the Crumbleys were fleeing arrest, as well as Mrs. Crumbley lying under oath.
Judge Matthews said the issue could set a “dangerous precedent,” adding, “I can’t tell you how much I do not want to do this” before reviewing the evidence in her chambers and allowing its admission.
The screenshot showed a text from Mrs. Crumbley’s phone to her attorney at 11:16 p.m. on Dec. 3, 2021, saying they had possibly been caught, at a time police footage showed that the police were already in the building in which they were hiding.
This was after Mrs. Crumbley testified the prior day that she and her husband took four Xanax each at 11:00 p.m. and were asleep when police located and arrested them.
The prosecution throughout the trial brought in witnesses ranging from many police officers and detectives to victims of the shooting, including the teacher who was shot.
Evidence was introduced regarding the shooting itself, which the defense sought to argue was not relevant to Mrs. Crumbley’s case. The prosecution argued it was relevant as they were being charged for the involuntary murders their son committed.
News cameras in the courtroom captured video and audio of Mrs. Crumbley sobbing during some of the evidence presented regarding the shooting, including video and testimony.
Shortly after the trial began, Ms. Smith was also seen crying, something the prosecution urged the judge to get under control so as to not influence the jury.
The defense was set to call two additional witnesses, the parents of Mrs. Crumbley, but rested their case after the cross-examination and redirect of their only witness, which was Mrs. Crumbley herself.
Ms. Smith noted that she wanted the shooter himself to testify, but the judge repeatedly told her that there would be a mistrial if that happened because his attorneys had already indicated he would plead the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify.
Mrs. Crumbley faces up to 15 years in prison for each charge and will be sentenced on April 9, the judge announced after the jury read their verdict.
Their son, now 17, is serving a life sentence without possibility of parole after pleading guilty to first-degree murder and terrorism charges.
