PONTIAC, Mich. – The Oxford High School shooter will face the possibility of life in prison without the chance for parole after an Oakland County judge decided Friday that the shooter’s age and life circumstances won’t mitigate his sentence.
Oakland County Judge Kwamé Rowe was tasked with deciding whether the Oxford shooter’s age, home life, brain development, and potential for rehabilitation, among other factors, might be cause to issue him a lesser sentence. This process, which is carried out through what is called a Miller hearing, is mandatory in the U.S. for people under the age of 18 who face life sentences without parole.
The now-17-year-old Oxford shooter, who was 15 years old at the time of the shooting, is facing a sentence of life in prison without parole under Michigan law. He was convicted of first-degree murder, terrorism causing death, and other crimes for the Nov. 30, 2021, massacre that left four students dead and seven people injured.
Judge Rowe issued his decision on Friday, Sept. 29 after considering the several so-called Miller factors, along with arguments and testimony made during the Miller hearing that ended in August. The judge sided with prosecutors, who have been seeking the harshest possible sentence for the Oxford shooter, saying the court weighed all of the factors and found that they did not warrant a lesser sentence.
Essentially: The judge has declared that the Oxford shooter can be sentenced to life in prison without parole. An official sentencing hearing is scheduled for Dec. 8, when victims will be able to make impact statements.
“I commend the teachers and students who testified about what happened at Oxford High School that day, and I hope the result today brings the victims, their families, and the Oxford community some comfort,” said Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald.
What was the Miller hearing?
Under Michigan law, the Oxford High School shooter is facing a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole after being convicted of 24 felonies in connection with the mass shooting. But before the shooter could be sentenced, a pre-sentencing hearing called a Miller hearing had to be held first, because he is a minor.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling dictates that sentencing must be considered differently for people under the age of 18 years old who are facing life sentences without the chance for parole -- even if they are charged and convicted as an adult, like the Oxford shooter was. Thus, a Miller hearing was held in which an Oakland County judge heard arguments for and against handing down the harshest possible sentence for the shooter.
The hearing included multiple days of arguments and witness testimony that spanned several weeks in late July and August. The fourth and final day of the hearing took place on Aug. 18.
During the hearing, the defense painted the shooter as a troubled and mentally ill child who had a difficult home life, but is capable of rehabilitation in an attempt to obtain a parole option for him. The prosecution argued that the mass school shooting was a meticulously premeditated and violent execution that the shooter did to bring himself pleasure and fame, and that he should not be allowed parole ever.
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald said she believes it should be “exceedingly rare that a minor be sentenced to life without parole,” but she and her team argue that the Oxford shooter is an exception who deserves the harshest punishment possible.
Though jail time is an absolute for the shooter, Judge Rowe had to decide whether to sentence the shooter to life without parole, or to a term of years in prison instead. If the harshest sentence was not handed down, the Oxford shooter would have faced a minimum prison sentence between 25-40 years, followed by eligibility for parole.
The Oxford shooter’s official sentencing hearing has been tentatively scheduled for Dec. 8. That hearing will be held in person.
Victims will be allowed to make impact statements during that hearing, though because of the terrorism charge, there are potentially more than 2,000 victims who must be allowed the chance to speak, the judge said. It’s unknown how many people will make impact statements during the sentencing hearing.
A legal look at the Miller hearing
The Miller hearing was not a trial, and there was no jury in this case. Both the defense and the prosecution presented their cases to the judge, who will have the sole authority to decide on a sentence for the Oxford shooter.
The hearing was mandatory because the shooter is considered a minor, despite being convicted as an adult. The now-17-year-old shooter 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 were touched on by both sides during the Oxford shooter’s hearing.
Prosecutors worked 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 notoriety.
Since the shooter has been convicted, the defense wasn’t trying to disprove that the shooter is responsible for murder, assault and terrorism. Instead, the shooter’s attorneys focused 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 argued that, legally, their burden is not to prove that the Oxford shooter is beyond rehabilitation. Rather, prosecutors focused 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 had an impact on the shooter.
It was up to Judge Rowe to decide what effect, if any, mitigating factors would have on the shooter’s sentence.
What did the judge decide exactly?
Of the five Miller factors he considered, Judge Rowe only found two factors to be mitigating in the Oxford shooter’s case: his chronological age, and his family and home environment.
Because the shooter was 15 years old when he murdered four students, there’s no disputing that the shooter would be considered an adolescent whose brain wasn’t fully developed. Experts testified in court that the brain doesn’t completely develop until someone reaches their early-to-mid 20s.
At 15 years old, the judge declared that the shooter didn’t have much life experience, and relied on his parents to make major decisions.
However, Judge Rowe said the shooter’s age and his maturity do not go hand in hand. Based on the evidence, the judge found the shooter was mature enough to weigh the pros and cons of his actions, of his future and future employment, and how he fits into the world. The shooter also thoroughly researched for and planned the school shooting, how he would execute it, and what consequences he would face for it, which established his maturity for the judge.
Judge Rowe also said the shooter’s home life was “not ideal,” and considered the shooter’s living situation with his mother and father in Oxford a mitigating circumstance. The court found the shooter’s parents essentially neglected him by leaving him home alone as early as 6 years old and failing to provide mental health support requested by their son.
However, though not ideal, the judge said the shooter’s home life was “not terrible,” either since his basic needs were met, his parents showed some interest in his wellbeing, however “crude,” and he had support from an aunt and a grandmother. The judge also said because the shooter explicitly denied any history of trauma, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse from his family, the court placed “little-to-moderate weight on this mitigating factor.”
When the Miller hearing first began, Prosecutor McDonald argued that the evidence shows the parents hold responsibility for their poor behavior as parents, but that doesn’t mean the shooter shouldn’t still be held accountable for his actions separately. The shooter’s mother and father both face four counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the shooting. More on that below.
The court on Friday placed essentially no weight on the other Miller factors, rendering them moot. When it came to the shooter’s potential for rehabilitation, Judge Rowe said that the shooter’s chance for rehabilitation was “slim” given that he was still obsessed with violence, and continued the same type of behavior before and after incarceration.
Judge Rowe said that the school shooting was not a result of recklessness, but rather agreed with prosecutors that it was an extremely premeditated act of violence that the shooter had several opportunities to avoid, and chose not to.
The shooter’s crimes
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.
Prior to the Miller hearing, the Oxford shooter’s defense attorneys filed a motion in an attempt to have the “life without parole” condition of his possible sentence dismissed, but that request was denied.
Shooter’s parents also charged
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.