OXFORD, Mich. – The mother of the Oxford High School shooter is asking the court to exclude evidence of her son’s alleged bird mutilation from her approaching trial, which she’ll stand for involuntary manslaughter charges, according to a motion filed this week.
The shooter’s parents are both preparing to stand trial, now separately, on involuntary manslaughter charges stemming from the four high school students murdered by their son on Nov. 30, 2021. Though an extensive amount of evidence regarding the shooter’s behavior and home life have been shown in court in the tragedy’s aftermath, the parents have requested some of that evidence be excluded from their trials to prevent prejudice from the jury.
On motions filed previously, Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews approved such requests, in part, in an effort to ensure a fair trial. So far, Judge Matthews has ordered that the following evidence may not be used in the parents’ trials: The parents’ infidelity; content from the shooter’s additional Instagram accounts; the messiness of their home, and the fact that alcohol and marijuana were present there; the shooter’s internet searches; and the shooter’s Nazi coin.
Much of the evidence barred from trial was excluded because of their relevancy, or lack thereof, or because it’s believed the parents had no knowledge of certain things, such as the shooter’s multiple social media accounts. There was one piece of evidence, however, that the judge did not rule on at the time that is being revisited.
On Monday, Dec. 4, attorneys for the shooter’s mother, Jennifer Crumbley, filed a motion requesting that any evidence related to the shooter’s killing and mutilation of birds be excluded from her trial, saying it is irrelevant to the mother’s case.
“It is clear that the shooter mutilated baby birds on more than one occasion, texted a friend about details of mutilating birds, videorecorded himself doing so, and photographed vile and disgusting images of his actions,” the motion reads, in part. However, the defense argues that the shooter “intentionally hid” any evidence of bird mutilation from his parents.
“The shooter’s ‘bird evidence’ is irrelevant to whether Mrs. Crumbley committed involuntary manslaughter, especially considering there is no evidence to show she was aware of the shooter’s disgusting acts with birds.” The defense goes on to say that due to the horrific nature of the evidence, admitting it in court would only serve to “inflame the passions of a jury.”
The motion to exclude the bird evidence was only filed on behalf of Jennifer Crumbley. She and her husband James Crumbley are represented by separate counsel, and were approved in November to stand trial separately -- officially severing their legal ties in this case.
The parents are still expected to stand trial starting in January 2024.
Before the trial separation, Judge Matthews ruled against part of the defense’s earlier motion to exclude certain evidence. The court has said it will allow evidence related to violent video games played by the shooter; intoxication or drug use by the parents at the time of the shooting or when the shooter accessed the gun in their home; and the parents’ horseback riding.
Charges against the parents
Both parents have been charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter for the shooting deaths of 14-year-old Hana St. Juliana; 16-year-old Tate Myre; 17-year-old Madisyn Baldwin; and 17-year-old Justin Shilling. Prosecutors argue the parents failed to take steps that could have prevented the shooting, and instead opted to neglect their son despite his implied and explicit cries for help.
The parents are also accused of buying and encouraging the use of the gun used in the shooting, which also left seven people injured.
The parents’ charges and upcoming trials 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 by the accused, 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.
Separate trials could come at cost
Attorneys for James and Jennifer Crumbley filed motions on Nov. 13, requesting they stand trial separately for the four counts of involuntary manslaughter they face in connection with the Oxford shooting. They were initially set to be tried together as co-defendants starting on Jan. 23, 2024.
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 Nov. 13, 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.
The judge ruled in favor of the parents, deciding that they can stand trial separately.
The prosecution’s case
The prosecution accuses James and Jennifer Crumbley 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 a March 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.
Parents can’t attend son’s sentencing
The Oxford shooter’s sentencing hearing is scheduled to begin on Friday, Dec. 8. The court has ruled that the parents cannot attend the hearing.
The Oxford shooter faces the possibility of life in prison without the chance for parole, despite being under the age of 18. He has been convicted of 24 felonies, including first-degree murder and terrorism causing death, which both carry the punishment of life sentences.
While the hearing is scheduled to begin on Dec. 8, it’s unclear how long the hearing will actually last. Under Michigan law, the shooter’s victims must be given an opportunity to provide impact statements during his sentencing hearing -- and there are potentially hundreds of victims who could speak.
---> Learn more: Why Oxford shooter’s sentencing hearing could take a while