OXFORD, Mich. – In a major courtroom twist Wednesday, evidence related to an extramarital affair carried out by the Oxford High School shooter’s mother will now be allowed in court after the defense changed its mind about keeping those details private.
While cross-examining witness Brian Meloche, who was identified initially as a “friend” of Jennifer Crumbley during her involuntary manslaughter trial on Wednesday, Jan. 31, the defense initiated a line of questioning that put prosecutors on alert. Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Marc Keast warned the court that the defense was dangerously close to opening the door to discussing evidence that the defense had sought to exclude.
What became clear shortly after was that Meloche had been involved in an extramarital affair with Crumbley at the time of the Oxford shooting. At the request of the defense, the judge previously ruled that any evidence related to the parents’ extramarital affairs, among a few other things, would not be allowed in court in order to prevent unnecessary bias from the jury -- so Meloche was introduced as a friend, and was not questioned about the affair, at first.
But the defense spontaneously changed their position in the courtroom Wednesday when questions regarding the witness’ police interviews inched closer to facts of the affair. Defense attorney Shannon Smith said she would “like the door to be opened” to evidence related to the affair in order to “fully cross-examine this witness.”
In response, the prosecution said they take no issue with allowing evidence of the affair in court, but did tell the court that changing this rule would completely change their case.
Here’s what to know.
Overview: What happened Wednesday
During the cross examination of Meloche, Smith suggested law enforcement had intimidated the witness during his police interviews in the wake of the Oxford shooting. Meloche was required to interview with police on three different occasions, and Smith said his statements had changed over the course of the interviews.
Smith’s line of questioning implied that he changed his statements due to the alleged police intimidation -- a serious accusation. But as Smith got deeper in that line of questioning, the prosecution interrupted her, objecting to the questions.
The prosecution essentially said that if the defense planned to go that route with their questions, prosecutors had the right to discuss the extramarital affair in response, since Meloche reportedly made his testimony more favorable to Jennifer Crumbley at first, given their relationship.
After the argument continued in front of the jury briefly, the judge excused the jury so the attorneys could reach a decision. Both sides spoke with the judge, and the defendant also offered her input on the matter. Ultimately, all parties agreed that the extramarital affair could and should be discussed in the court.
“Counsel is choosing to cross-examine [Meloche] in a fashion which makes it appear that he had been intimidated, or willfully lied about statements made,” Keast said to the judge once the jury had left. “He has a reason why certain statements have changed, judge, and if counsel is going to be allowed to introduce this to the jury, we have to be allowed to rehabilitate him and show what actually happened.”
Meloche’s testimony resumed, and immediately began with questions about the affair. Meloche said his job as a fire chief was not threatened by police, but he did feel that authorities made a veiled threat that his affair with Crumbley would be made public.
Meloche said his statements made to police had changed, but only because he offered more information each time. Prosecutors made it clear that Meloche was asked by police to tell the full truth about everything.
How this changes the prosecution’s case
The prosecution was possibly going to rest their case on Wednesday -- but that didn’t happen.
It’s likely the prosecution will call even more witnesses to the stand, now that they’re allowed to utilize evidence previously barred by the judge. The assistant prosecutor told the just that, at the very least, they would like to call to the stand the two law enforcement officers who the defense is accusing of intimidating Meloche during his interviews.
“Counsel has alleged that two investigators with 30 years of experience have committed basically a crime by intimidating a witness and lying to a witness. It requires a strong and accurate response. This changes the entire case, judge. I can’t let that comment go without being corrected,” Keast said.
It’s unclear, however, if there are more witnesses that might get called who otherwise might not have been.
“At a bare minimum, judge, there are a number of items found off the defendant’s phone regarding the extramarital affair. The timing of that is important. If you want us to just stick with what happened with Mr. Meloche, that’s fine, but there is a vast amount of evidence to draw upon,” Keast said Wednesday.
The judge made it clear that she understood the request to disqualify the previous ruling and to allow evidence related to the affair at trial. Still, she said it was her job to assess if the relevance of the information outweighs the prejudice it could stir among the jury.
The judge reiterated that Jennifer Crumbley’s morality is not on trial, and that she wants to “stick to the elements of the case.”
“Whether law enforcement was appropriate with Mr. Meloche or not has been made an issue,” the judge said. “But, are we gonna have another week of trial about how terrible Mrs. Crumbley is?”
Assistant Prosecutor Keast responded, “Nobody is arguing that [the parents are] terrible ... we’re arguing that [Crumbley was] grossly negligent in adhering to their parental duty, and that caused death.”
When asking the defense for their thoughts, Smith confirmed that she’s spoken “extensively” with Jennifer Crumbley about this evidence, and that they don’t think it will hurt their case to allow it in court.
“An affair is what an affair is ... At this point, her life is more important than her dignity. She had an affair. Lots of people have affairs,” Smith said. “The bottom line is, at the end of the day, it doesn’t mean you know your kid’s a school shooter. It doesn’t mean that you know your child’s going to kill people.”
The defense attorney told the judge that prosecutors could “bring in a wheelbarrow” of evidence related to Crumbley’s affair, and it would only help the defense by making it seem prosecutors are “punishing Mrs. Crumbley for the wrong things.”
Still, the judge implied that if the door opened too wide on this subject, she’d have no problem closing it -- even if just partly.
---> From Wednesday: Full updates on Day 5 of trial for mother of Oxford shooter (Jan. 31)
You can watch the court’s discussion about the evidence, when the jury wasn’t present, in the video up above.