Jury can only find Jennifer Crumbley guilty if prosecutor proved 1 of 2 theories

OXFORD, Mich. – Members of the jury were deliberating Monday over whether to convict Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of the Oxford High School shooter, of four counts of involuntary manslaughter.

During seven days of witness testimony, prosecutors sought to prove that Crumbley failed to take steps to prevent the Nov. 30, 2021, shooting that left four students dead and seven people injured. Prosecutors have long alleged that the mother ignored her son’s cries for help and instead spent time on her own activities and bought him the gun used in the shooting.

The jury began deliberating on Monday, Feb. 5, and they’ve been provided with a strict set of guidelines for what they must consider and how. The jury instructions specifically define what counts as evidence, and what criteria must be met in order for them to find the defendant guilty.

Throughout Crumbely’s trial, Oakland County prosecutors introduced two different theories that could satisfy the involuntary manslaughter charges against her. In order to find Crumbley guilty, jury members must all agree that the prosecution proved at least one of two theories beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury does not have to agree on which of the two theories was proven, just that at least one of them was. If all jury members believe at least one of the theories was proven, Crumbley could be declared guilty. If any of the jury members believe the prosecution failed to prove either of the theories, Crumbley could be declared not guilty.

---> Live updates: Jury to decide fate of Jennifer Crumbley after 7 days of testimony

Below are the prosecution’s two involuntary manslaughter theories, as described in the jury instructions provided Monday. You can read the full jury instructions at the bottom of this article.

Failure to perform a legal duty

The prosecution’s first involuntary manslaughter theory is related to the “failure to perform a legal duty.” In this case, Jennifer Crumbley is charged with involuntary manslaughter “resulting from a failure to perform a legal duty.”

According to the jury instructions, this charge can only be proven if prosecutors proved “each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt”:

1. Jennifer Crumbley had a legal duty to the victims killed in the shooting. In Michigan, a parent has a legal duty to exercise reasonable care to control their minor child so as to prevent the minor child from intentionally harming others or prevent the minor child from conducting themselves in a way that creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others. This duty arises when both of the following are true:
   1. The parent knows or has reason to know that they have the ability to control their minor child; and
   2. The parent knows of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.
2. The defendant knew of the facts that gave rise to the duty.
3. The defendant willfully neglected or refused to perform that duty and her failure to perform it was grossly negligent to human life.
4. The death of the victims were directly caused by Crumbley’s failure to perform this duty. That is, the victims died as a result of Crumbley’s failure to exercise reasonable care to control her minor child to prevent him from intentionally harming others or conducting himself to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others when Crumbley knew she had the ability to control her son and knew of the necessity and opportunity to do so.

When defining the cause of death of the four students murdered in the Oxford shooting, the jury instructions make it clear that there doesn’t have to be only one cause of death. Of course, the Oxford shooter physically carried out the shootings. Still, in order to find Jennifer Crumbley guilty of involuntary manslaughter, the jury must find that:

• The deaths of the victims were the natural or necessary result of the defendant’s act beyond a reasonable doubt, and
• The shooter’s act of shooting someone was reasonably foreseeable.

The section describing how Crumbley’s actions, or inactions, must be considered a cause of death for the four shooting victims appeared on a separate page between the two involuntary manslaughter theories. It was unclear if that requirement is associated with only the first theory, or with both, and the judge did not specify that while reading the instructions Monday morning.

Gross negligence

The second involuntary manslaughter theory introduced by the prosecutors focuses on negligence. Here, the Oakland County prosecutor claims Crumbley committed involuntary manslaughter because she was “grossly negligent.”

According to the jury instructions: “Gross negligence means more than carelessness. It means willfully disregarding the results to others that might follow from an act or failure to act. In order to find that the defendant was grossly negligent, you must find each of the following three things beyond a reasonable doubt”:

1. Crumbley knew of the danger to another. That is, she knew there was a situation that required her to take ordinary care to avoid injuring another.
2. Crumbley could have avoided injuring another by using ordinary care.
3. Crumbley failed to use ordinary care to prevent injuring another when, to a reasonable person, it must have been apparent that the result was likely to be a serious injury.

---> Prosecutor to jury: Think about what Jennifer Crumbley knew, but didn’t say

---> Mother: Oxford shooter’s texts about ghosts, hallucinations just jokes

---> Prosecutor implies Oxford shooter’s mother lied about sleeping as police swarmed her in Detroit

---> Mother: ‘Don’t do it’ text sent to Oxford shooter because she thought he’d kill himself, not others

Jury questions

So far on Monday, the jury has sent a note to the judge on two separate occasions with two separate questions as they consider the case.

The first question asked whether all jury members must agree on one theory, or if they can each use either theory to convict Crumbley of involuntary manslaughter. The judge referred the jury back to the section of the jury instructions that says: “It is not necessary that you all agree on which theory has been proven, as long as you all agree that the prosecutor has proved at least one of those theories beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The jury’s second question was whether they were allowed to confer anything from evidence or witnesses the prosecution did not call to the stand, specifically when it comes to the shooter and others who could answer specifically about how he obtained the gun. The judge said no, and referred the jury back to section 3.5 of their jury instructions, which outlines what the jury is allowed to consider as evidence.

You can read the full jury instructions below.

---> Why the Oxford shooter didn’t testify at his mother’s manslaughter trial

Click here for full coverage on the Jennifer Crumbley trial.