OXFORD, Mich. – The judge presiding over the case of the Oxford shooter’s father was considering several motions related to evidence, witnesses and more in the days leading up to the father’s trial.
Defense attorneys for James Crumbley are seeking to make some changes before the father of the Oxford High School shooter stands trial on four counts of involuntary manslaughter. The shooter’s father and mother were both charged in connection with the four children murdered by their son on Nov. 30, 2021.
Two weeks before the trial is set to begin on March 2, defense attorney Mariell Lehman filed motions to exclude certain evidence and certain witnesses from the courtroom. The defense also filed a motion last week seeking to move the trial to a different Michigan county.
Here’s a breakdown of what the judge was considering as of Thursday, Feb. 22.
Defense request to exclude witnesses
The defense has asked that three of the prosecution’s potential witnesses be barred from testifying at Crumbley’s upcoming trial. Specifically, the defense doesn’t want testimonies from two former students who were shot and injured at Oxford High School, or from the person who owned the handgun used in the shooting before James Crumbley did.
At a motion hearing held on Wednesday, Feb. 21, Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews heard arguments for and against excluding the three witnesses.
Prosecutors said Wednesday that testimony from all three witnesses are relevant to the case, though the witnesses could end up not getting called to the stand. Attorneys are required to establish lists of potential witnesses, but aren’t required to call all witnesses on their list.
Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Marc Keast told the courtroom that the two students who survived the shooting could offer unique, first-hand accounts and different perspectives of the shooting. Keast also said the former students are both above the age of 18, and their families have approved them to participate as witnesses, if they’re called.
The defense claims that testimony from the two former students is not relevant to the trial, since a video of the shooting will already be presented to show the jury what happened. Lehman told the court that the students’ testimonies would only serve to “inflame the jury” and generate “unfair prejudice” among the jury.
Judge Matthews did not announce a decision for these potential witnesses on Wednesday. She said she needed more time to consider whether they should be allowed on the witness list.
The judge did, however, agree to allow a third witness that the defense had called into question: the former owner of the handgun bought by James Crumbley, and used by his son in the school shooting.
The man who owned the gun had purchased it from a gun store, used it a few times, and sold it back to the store. James Crumbley later bought that same gun from that same store.
Prosecutors say the man who first owned the gun could offer information about the condition of the firearm and the cable lock that came with it. Judge Matthews agreed that witness’ testimony would be relevant to the trial, if he were to be called.
Defense wants to exclude journal, text evidence
James Crumbley’s defense is asking to exclude from the trial evidence related to the Oxford shooter’s journal and certain text messages he sent. This evidence was allowed at the trial of the shooter’s mother, which resulted in a conviction earlier this month, but the defense for the father is taking a different approach.
The evidence in question is:
- The shooter’s personal journal, in which he wrote negative things about his parents. The shooter repeatedly claimed that his parents ignored his requests for help, and that he wasn’t allowed to receive mental health help. The shooter also went into detail about his desire and plans to carry out a violent school shooting.
- Text messages sent by the shooter to his friend. The shooter texted a friend that he asked his parents for help, and that his parents wouldn’t take him seriously. The shooter said his father told him to “suck it up” after expressing that he was struggling.
So, why wouldn’t these be allowed as evidence at the trial?
First and foremost: The shooter will not be testifying at his father’s trial. Just as he did for his mother’s trial, the shooter’s attorneys made it clear that the shooter is asserting his Fifth Amendment rights and will not offer testimony regarding the case.
Without the shooter taking the stand, evidence of things he said -- even written things -- could be considered hearsay if brought up at trial. Hearsay is when a witness reports another person’s words, which is typically not allowed as evidence.
If a law enforcement officer were to walk through statements made by the shooter during the prosecutor’s questioning, the defense would have no opportunity to cross-examine those statements, since the officer isn’t the one who said them. The officer also wouldn’t be able to testify about the thoughts behind the statements, what the shooter meant, and the like because, again, the statements did not come from the officer.
The defense referenced James Crumbley’s “right to confrontation,” which means he has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him during his trial. Attorney Lehman argues the evidence directly from the shooter shouldn’t be allowed, since the shooter himself won’t be present to address it, and the statements can’t be cross-examined.
The defense for both the Oxford shooter’s parents have long asserted that the parents had no knowledge of the shooter’s journal or the texts he sent to his friend.
Judge Matthews did not issue a ruling on this request in court on Wednesday. There did not appear to be a ruling on the court’s website as of Thursday.
Request to change trial venue
The defense last week filed a request to change the venue of James Crumbley’s trial to a different county. Lehman argued that it would be difficult to secure a fair and impartial jury in Oakland County where the shooting took place, and where the media has consistently covered the Crumbley parents’ cases.
The motion claims media coverage regarding the Oxford shooter’s parents and their involuntary manslaughter charges has even surpassed the coverage of the shooter himself.
“[I]f a case has received widespread pretrial publicity, one of the parties may make a motion (request to the judge) for change of venue in an effort to secure jurors who haven’t already formed an opinion about the case,” the American Bar Association says.
It’s the belief of the defense that jurors pulled from Oakland County would already have knowledge about James Crumbley’s case, and may have prejudice against him. In an effort to ensure a fair trial, the defense requested the venue move to a different county to have access to a jury pool that hasn’t been influenced by media coverage.
Before the shooter’s parents severed their trials, they made the same request in 2022, asking to move their trial elsewhere due to the same concerns. Judge Matthews denied their request then, saying Oakland County is a large, diverse county with many different people and perspectives.
“The level of pretrial publicity, and the number of prospective jurors that might have been directly affected by the Oxford shooting alone is not enough to warrant a change of venue before conducting voir dire,” Matthews said in 2022. “Oakland County is not a small community and is sufficiently diverse to weigh against a finding of presumed prejudice. It’s well-established that pretrial publicity alone does not warrant a change of venue.”
Judge Matthews denied this motion on Thursday afternoon.
She did, however, grant a separate motion from the defense to allow them more peremptory challenges during the jury selection process. Attorneys can use peremptory challenges to dismiss a juror without needing a reason. Peremptory challenges differ from “for cause” challenges, which means the attorney has a specific reason for believing a juror would not be impartial.
The defense and prosecution are both allowed five peremptory challenges in this case, though now the defense has more. The exact number of additional challenges was not immediately known.