OXFORD, Mich. – Despite repeated requests from the defense, the Oxford High School shooter did not testify at his mother’s involuntary manslaughter trial as previously thought possible.
Last week during the trial of Jennifer Crumbley, defense attorney Shannon Smith made it clear she wanted to call the shooter to the witness stand.
In the years since the shooting, a large catalogue of evidence has been discussed in court, including journal entries and text messages written by the shooter that criticize his parents and their alleged lack of attention. Still, the defense had hoped to call the shooter to the stand in defense of his mother.
It could’ve been a beneficial approach for the defense if the now-sentenced shooter spoke approvingly of his mother and accepted sole responsibility for the Nov. 30, 2021, shooting -- as he did in a statement during his sentencing hearing in December 2023.
In 2022, the attorney for the Oxford shooter said he could get called to testify at the trials of his parents, who are each facing four counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the 2021 shooting. But Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews made it clear last week the shooter was not going to partake in his mother’s trial.
Judge: It’s not my choice, it’s the law
In court on Thursday, Feb. 1, Smith interrupted the prosecution’s questioning of Oakland County Detective Lt. Timothy Willis, who is the officer in charge of the Oxford shooting case. Prosecutors were asking Willis about the shooter’s infamous journal, which was unsealed and present in the courtroom.
Smith interjected at one point, essentially telling the judge that her position is compromised because she can’t question the shooter about things he said and wrote that were being brought up during Willis’ testimony. Judge Matthews clarified that the decision to keep the shooter out of this trial isn’t hers to make.
Here’s how their conversation went:
- Judge: I’m not keeping you from calling him, the law is keeping you from calling him.
- Smith: I’m hamstrung, because these statements are coming in by a declarant that I’m not allowed to call as a witness.
- Judge: I never said you could not call the shooter as a witness.
- Smith: I was getting the vibe that would be the ruling of the court.
- Judge: No, that will never be the ruling of the court.
- Judge: I am not, as a judge in this court, telling you [that] you cannot call the shooter as a witness. However … pursuant to case law that everybody’s aware of, including a case called Giacalone ... no one is allowed to put a witness in front of this jury who is going to take the Fifth. No one. It’s not me. … His Fifth Amendment rights have been asserted repeatedly, and I cannot let you put the witness on the stand -- anyone, the prosecution, too -- knowing that person was going to take the Fifth. If someone takes the Fifth in front of the jury, it’s over. It’s a mistrial. I can’t let you do that.
Smith ultimately conceded, saying, “If that’s the law ... then I preserve the record, and I’m moving on.” The issue wasn’t brought up in court again.
Why the law prevents the Oxford shooter from taking the stand
Whether the shooter would take the stand was an issue debated in the courtroom from the start of Jennifer Crumbley’s trial. The shooter, his attorney, and the state defender’s office had repeatedly asserted the shooter’s Fifth Amendment rights, according to the judge, which protects him from self-incrimination. The constitutional right allows a person to refuse to make statements that are potentially incriminating, and to refuse to testify at a criminal trial.
Even though the shooter had invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, defense attorney Smith said she still wanted to call him to the stand. But the judge said the shooter wouldn’t be able to answer any relevant questions while “taking the Fifth,”
“Aside from, ‘What is your favorite color?’ I can’t imagine something you can ask him that wouldn’t implicate his Fifth Amendment rights,” Judge Matthews said.
Why does this matter?
The American Bar Association has a set of rules and standards that lawyers must follow in the courtroom. Under the ABA’s standards, lawyers are not allowed to knowingly offer inadmissible evidence -- which includes calling a witness while knowing that person will invoke the Fifth Amendment and not testify.
This concept was upheld in a Michigan Supreme Court ruling in the 1970s case known as People v. Giacalone, which Judge Matthews referenced in her response.
Under Michigan case law, it’s accepted that a jury could become prejudiced if a witness is required to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights while on the stand. If the prosecutor or defense were to call a witness that they know won’t testify, it would be grounds for a mistrial.
Smith had a different argument, however: She said the defense doesn’t believe it’s within the shooter’s rights to take the Fifth. That’s because once a person is convicted of a crime and sentenced for it, they’re no longer allowed to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.
Because the Oxford shooter was sentenced to life in prison in December 2023, Smith argues the shooter is required to testify at the defense’s request.
But the shooter’s legal representation is planning to appeal his sentence, if that process hasn’t already begun. With an appeal imminent, the shooter remains allowed to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, despite being convicted and sentenced.
- Smith: As far as our position, I’ve indicated I don’t believe the shooter should be allowed to plead the Fifth because he was sentenced, he’s made statements about the crimes, he’s pled guilty to all 24 counts in adult court ...
- Judge: And so, you think that’s over?
- Smith: I think there is not case law that he gets to continue his Fifth Amendment rights beyond that plea.
- Judge: His appellate rights?
- Smith: He’s going to pursue an appeal, I don’t disagree.
- Judge: What would make me think he does not still have Fifth Amendment rights?
Judge Matthews said she expects the shooter’s attempt to appeal his sentence is a process that will continue on long after she retires.
The defense agreed to the judge’s decision, and backed down on the subject. After a private hearing among the parties, the judge announced that some of the shooter’s personal records would also be barred from entering Jennifer Crumbley’s trial.
“The court ruled that there is an absolute privilege that belongs to the shooter, therefore none of the psychological or medical records on the shooter will be eligible to be admitted in this matter,” Judge Matthews said on Feb. 1.
Jennifer Crumbley’s trial ends
The defense rested its case on Friday, Feb. 2 -- day seven of the trial of Jennifer Crumbley. Both Crumbley and her husband were charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter for the four students murdered by their son in 2021, and have been in jail awaiting trial for two years.
Jury deliberations began the morning of Monday, Feb. 5 in the trial of Jennifer Crumbley. The jury was left with significant evidence and testimony to consider after hearing from 22 witnesses, including Crumbley herself. For seven days, jurors heard details about events leading up to the fatal Nov. 30, 2021, shooting, how the shooting took place, and how the shooter’s parents responded to it.
Ultimately, the jury will have to decide if the Oakland County prosecutors proved their case: that Crumbley is partly responsible for four student deaths after allegedly failing to “exercise reasonable care” to prevent her minor child from harming others. She is also accused of storing the handgun and ammunition used in the shooting in a way that was easily accessible to the shooter.
---> More: Conviction decision coming soon for Jennifer Crumbley: What to know
Click here for full coverage on the Jennifer Crumbley trial.