PONTIAC, Mich. – The third day of a pre-sentencing hearing for the Oxford High School shooter wrapped up Tuesday following three sessions filled with troubling testimony meant to help the judge decide whether or not parole will be an option.
The now-17-year-old Oxford shooter has been present in court for what’s known as a Miller hearing before he can be sentenced for the 24 felonies he’s convicted of. The shooter faces mandatory sentences of life in prison without parole in connection with the Nov. 30, 2021, massacre, but his sentencing must be handled differently because he’s a minor.
Since the hearing began on Thursday, July 27, the defense and prosecution have called witnesses to offer testimony in support of, and against, a parole option for the shooter. In short, the defense have been trying to prove the belief that the shooter should be allowed a parole option, and that he is not beyond rehabilitation. Prosecutors have been working to establish the opposite, arguing the incredibly violent and premeditated violence calls for the harshest sentence.
The hearing is still not over, and will resume at 9 a.m. on Aug. 18 for what is expected to be the final day. After it has concluded, the judge will decide on a sentence.
Below, we’re breaking down what was presented during the hearing on Tuesday, Aug. 1, and the previous Thursday and Friday. We’re also explaining why a Miller hearing is necessary.
What the prosecution has presented
On July 27, testimony was heard from several of the prosecution’s witnesses, namely law enforcement members involved in the investigation of the November 2021 shooting. The shooter has since admitted to and been convicted of murdering four students that day, and shooting and injuring seven other people, among other crimes.
Prosecutors on July 27 went through disturbing journal entries, text messages, and videos created by the shooter leading up to the tragic event. Some of this evidence has been shown in court throughout the last several months, but some evidence was new to the public. These writings were meant to help establish just how premeditated the violent attack was, and how much the shooter was looking forward to it.
Among that evidence was a video the shooter recorded the day before the shooting, in which he identified himself as the nation’s next mass school shooter, and explicitly outlined his plans and motive for the massacre.
Read more: Oxford shooter explains plans to ‘kill everyone’ in video recorded day before shooting
In many of the other documents, the shooter glorified weapons, school shootings, and discussed how much he wanted to carry out the mass shooting.
The prosecution introduced three additional witnesses on Friday, July 28, including two high school students and an assistant principal who directly experienced the shooting and the shooter. Their emotional testimonies offered three perspectives of the horrific event, including details of their attempts to help students who were injured or killed, and the shooter’s actions.
While Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald said she agrees it should be “exceedingly rare that a minor be sentenced to life without parole,” she and her team argue that the Oxford shooter is an exception and deserves the harshest punishment possible.
What the defense has presented
Meanwhile, the defense has been working to establish the shooter as a young boy who was dealing with mental health issues and neglectful parents leading up to and at the time of the shooting. On July 28, the defense had three witnesses take the stand: an incarceration expert, the shooter’s jail-appointed therapist, and an expert in developmental psychology who specializes in child development.
Through their witnesses’ testimonies, defense attorneys have tried to show the judge that the shooter is not “irreparably corrupt” and can be rehabilitated. The witnesses, who were recognized by the court as experts, offered insight into the shooter’s mental state, how advanced his brain development was at the time of the shooting, and what rehabilitation might look like while in prison.
The defense called their final witness -- Dr. Colin King, a clinical and forensic psychologist -- on Tuesday, Aug. 1, who was questioned by both sides throughout the day. The doctor testified that he believed the shooter to be mentally ill at the time of the shooting and in the present.
Though determining the shooter was fit to stand trial, King said he believed the shooter suffers from psychosis. He also diagnosed the shooter with major depressive disorder, anxiety, and features of obsessive compulsive disorder.
Defense played five video clips from one incident inside the Oakland County Jail, where the shooter is lodged, which were recorded sometime after the shooting. In the videos, the shooter can be seen thrashing as officers calmly restrain him. The shooter continuously yelled “God, why didn’t you stop it” and “please help me.”
Prosecutors argue the alleged psychosis on display in the video was a result of the shooter’s violent crime, and didn’t necessarily predate it. Prosecutors also tried to establish that the shooter’s believed mental disorders were not believed to have motivated the shooter, who repeatedly and explicitly expressed his desire to kill and harm people and animals, and get attention for it.
The remainder of the hearing’s third day was spent going through the nuances in Dr. King’s report.
The legal argument
This hearing, called a Miller hearing, is not a trial, and there is no jury in this case. Both sides are presenting their cases to the judge, who will have the sole authority to sentence the Oxford High School shooter.
This hearing is mandatory because the shooter is considered a minor, even though he has been convicted as an adult. He was 15 years old at the time of the shooting. The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that sentencing for minors facing life in prison without the chance for parole must be considered differently than for adults.
During a Miller hearing, a judge considers a number of factors that may or may not affect how they sentence the convicted individual. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case Miller v. Alabama states that instead of automatically imposing a life sentence, a “judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty for juveniles.”
The Michigan bar says a judge or jury will specifically consider the following factors during a Miller hearing, which attorneys often refer to as the “Miller factors”:
- The defendant’s chronological age and its hallmark features -- among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences.
- The defendant’s family and home environment.
- The circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of the defendant’s participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer pressures may have affected the defendant.
- Whether the defendant might have been charged with and convicted of a lesser offense if not for incompetencies associated with youth.
- The defendant’s possibility of rehabilitation.
All of these factors have been touched on by both sides.
Prosecutors have been trying to show the judge that despite potential mitigating circumstances, such as the shooter’s complex home life with his parents, the shooter actively planned, prepared for, and expressed desire to inflict serious pain. Prosecutors also emphasized that the shooting wasn’t an impulsive act, but rather a well thought-out, execution-style killing that the shooter felt would bring him fame.
Since the shooter has been convicted, the defense isn’t trying to disprove that the shooter is responsible for murder, assault and terrorism. Instead, the shooter’s attorneys are focusing on their belief that the shooter isn’t beyond rehabilitation, which is one of the Miller factors.
The defense’s goal is to get the shooter some sort of sentence that includes an option for parole. Prison time is inevitable, but the judge will be able to decide if and when parole could be an option for the shooter down the line.
Though possible rehabilitation is one of the Miller factors, prosecutors argue that, legally, their burden is not to prove that the Oxford shooter is beyond rehabilitation. Rather, prosecutors are focusing more on the proportionality of the sentencing to the crime while considering the Miller factors. Prosecutors argue the severity of the shooter’s actions, thoughts, and intentions go well beyond any mitigating circumstances that might have affected the shooter.
Again, it will be up to the judge to decide what effect, if any, mitigating factors might have on the shooter’s sentence.
What’s next?
The Miller hearing did not conclude on Tuesday, Aug. 1, as expected. The court will reconvene for the hearing’s fourth day at 9 a.m. on Aug. 18.
Following the hearing, the judge will issue a decision on whether to sentence the minor to life without parole, or to a term of years in prison instead, the Michigan bar says. Whatever the judge decides, the court is required to state, on the record, the “aggravating and mitigating factors it considered in reaching its decision.”
A sentencing hearing has not yet been scheduled. The judge said Tuesday he needs to discuss with the Michigan Department of Corrections before setting a sentencing date.
What was the shooter convicted of?
The Oxford High School shooter opened fire during school hours on Nov. 30, 2021, and murdered four students and injured seven other people. Soon after, he was charged as an adult with 24 felonies by the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office.
The shooter was expected to stand trial this January after initially pleading not guilty to all charges, but he changed that plea to guilty in October 2022. He has been convicted of the following crimes:
- One count of terrorism causing death.
- Four counts of first-degree murder.
- Seven counts of assault with intent to murder.
- 12 counts of possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
It is the first time that a U.S. school shooter has been convicted of terrorism.
Terrorism causing death and first-degree murder both carry a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole in Michigan. Assault with intent to murder in Michigan carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, or imprisonment of any number of years.
A person’s first felony firearm conviction is punishable by up to 2 years in prison in Michigan. A second felony firearm conviction carries a 5-year sentence, while third and subsequent convictions carry 10-year sentences.
The Oxford shooter’s defense attorneys recently filed a motion in an attempt to have the “life without parole” condition of his possible sentence dismissed, but that request was denied. The judge also denied the shooter’s request to wear street clothes instead of a jail jumpsuit to the Miller hearing.
Shooter’s parents await trial
The shooter’s mother and father are also facing criminal charges in connection with the fatal mass shooting. In addition to allegedly neglecting their son and his emotional and mental health needs, as prosecutors argue, the parents are also accused of buying their son the handgun used in the shooting.
After months of the shooter’s parents attempting to get their case thrown out, the Michigan Court of Appeals in March upheld a ruling ordering them to stand trial on the four involuntary manslaughter charges they each face.