OXFORD, Mich. – Prosecutors on Monday told an Oakland County court that they support requests made by the Oxford shooter’s parents to have separate trials for their involuntary manslaughter charges -- but also said separate trials will come at a cost.
Attorneys for the mother and father of the Oxford High School shooter on Monday, Nov. 13 filed motions requesting the parents stand trial separately for the four counts of involuntary manslaughter they were each charged with in connection with the shooting. James and Jennifer Crumbley were initially set to stand trial together as co-defendants starting Jan. 23, 2024 -- but that trial date could be affected if the court grants their request for trial separation.
The Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office filed their responses with the Oakland County Circuit Court the same day, expressing support for the motions filed by the couple. But while agreeing the parents are legally entitled to separate trials, prosecutors say two trials will have a negative impact for many groups of people.
“The People admit that the defendant is entitled to a separate trial because some of the evidence introduced against the codefendant at trial would be damaging to the defendant,” the prosecutors’ filing reads. “Separate trials in this case come at significant cost to victims, witnesses, taxpayers, and the additional jurors who will serve. But the Constitution affords the defendant that right, and the People agree that the defendant is entitled to a separate trial.”
In their filings on Monday, prosecutors said they agree that a conflict exists as it relates to jointly trying the shooter’s parents, but also said they raised the issue of a potential conflict on several occasions more than a year ago. Prosecutors previously sought to ensure the defendants knew of this conflict as they agreed to be represented by two separate attorneys who work under the same firm.
A decision had not yet been announced by the court Monday afternoon. If the motions are granted, the shooter’s parents will stand trial separately. It was not immediately clear how that would play out in terms of scheduling.
Parents charged with involuntary manslaughter
The Oxford shooter’s parents have been charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, one for each of the four students murdered by their son: 14-year-old Hana St. Juliana; 16-year-old Tate Myre; 17-year-old Madisyn Baldwin; and 17-year-old Justin Shilling.
Both parents are accused of neglecting their son, buying him the gun used in the shooting, and failing to take steps that could have prevented the massacre, which also left seven people injured.
The parents’ charges and upcoming trial are setting a new precedent: James and Jennifer Crumbley are the first parents of a mass school shooter to face charges in connection with the shooting in the United States.
Here’s what involuntary manslaughter means:
Involuntary manslaughter is one of the lowest homicide-related charges someone can receive after a person is killed. Involuntary manslaughter happens when a person’s death resulted from another person’s negligent or criminal actions.
To qualify as involuntary manslaughter, the death was not intentional or planned, but rather technically accidental. Still, the person charged with involuntary manslaughter is believed to be responsible for the death, despite their intentions.
An involuntary manslaughter charge in Michigan is a felony and carries a punishment of up to 15 years in prison, and/or a fine of up to $7,500.
The legal specifics
Part of the involuntary manslaughter charges involves alleged negligence on behalf of the Oxford shooter’s parents.
In Michigan, criminal negligence is defined as the “failure to use reasonable care with respect to a material element of an offense to avoid consequences that are the foreseeable outcome of the person’s conduct with respect to a material element of an offense and that threaten or harm the safety of another.”
“Foresee” is a keyword here. Whether or not the parents could have foreseen the fatal mass shooting was the largest debate during a Court of Appeals hearing that occurred in March.
The appellate judges did not say definitively then if they believe James and Jennifer Crumbley could have foreseen the mass shooting carried out by their son. At least two of the three judges did say, however, they believe causation would be easy to prove in this case.
“... this is involuntary manslaughter -- which is malice-free homicide. In this sort of case, all we’re really looking for is foreseeability, aren’t we?” said appeals court Judge Christopher Yates.
“We’ll grant you that you have to show factual cause and proximate cause. I think factual cause, at least under probable cause standard, is not even worth discussing today,” the judge continued. “But, in terms of proximate cause: Isn’t it just simply a question of foreseeability? And, as Judge Murray says, something beyond negligence can be foreseeable, and it seems to me these sorts of facts are exactly where it would be foreseeable.”
The legal issue of “negligence” is broken down into a few sub-categories, including “causation.” There are multiple types of causation, including factual and proximate.
Factual causation determines if the incident -- in this case, a mass shooting -- would have occurred without the action or inaction of the defendants. The appellate judges seemed to agree that factual causation is obvious in this case, saying that it’d be easy to prove that if the parents had taken their son out of school the morning of the shooting, the Oxford shooting wouldn’t have happened.
Proximate causation determines if there is a cause behind the incident that can hold the defendant legally liable in that incident. Proximate cause was also debated in March. The prosecution said then that in the lower court’s hearing of the case, the court focused more on factual causation than on proximate causation.
The defense argues that there isn’t any argument for any causation between the Crumbley parents and the Oxford shooting. With the parents officially headed to trial, it is likely this topic will be strongly debated.
In a criminal case, prosecutors must prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt -- the highest level of proof there is. This means that the proof must show a great certainty that the defendant is guilty.
The case against the parents
The prosecution accuses the Crumbleys of being grossly negligent toward their son by failing to provide proper care when he reported having hallucinations and struggling with his mental health. Instead, the parents purchased a handgun for their son and failed to address concerns presented by school staff leading up to the shooting, prosecutors argue.
Gross negligence in Michigan means that a person willfully disregarded the results to others “that might follow from an act or failure to act,” according to the state. In this case, the parents are accused of demonstrating a significant lack of concern about their son’s emotional state and actions, and what he might do to himself or others without proper intervention from them.
Prosecutors believe the parents knew that their son posed a danger to others, and failed to provide “ordinary care” that could have prevented the mass shooting. According to prosecutors, that ordinary care could’ve looked like taking their son home from school when called in for a meeting the morning of the shooting, or looking in his backpack during that meeting for the recently purchased gun, or storing that gun securely at their home, among other things.
Michigan law doesn’t define one way in which ordinary care is exercised, prosecutors said in March. Parents do a have “duty of care,” however, which is their legal obligation to exercise reasonable care for their children -- which looks like providing food, housing, schooling, health care (including mental health) and the like.
Prosecutors have argued the parents neglected their son by failing to provide him with appropriate mental health care in the months before the shooting. During the Court of Appeals hearing, the defense agreed that the parents handled their circumstances poorly.
The defense said then that the parents could have gotten their son into therapy, and said the parents weren’t well equipped to handle several factors in this case. " ... I will concede that these parents made tremendously bad decisions,” defense attorney Shannon Smith said, in part, in March.
Still, the defense argues that the parents could not have foreseen the mass shooting based on what they knew. On the other side, prosecutors say that the parents had significant knowledge about their son’s poor mental state and his interest in guns and shooting, and could have foreseen such a tragedy.
The Oxford shooter’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for Dec. 8. The shooter’s parents requested to attend the hearing, but were denied. The shooter could be sentenced to life in prison without the chance for parole. It was unknown if the shooter would be asked to testify at his parents’ trial.