OXFORD, Mich. – Prosecutors on Thursday told the jury that James Crumbley, the father of the Oxford High School shooter, had the “most glaring” opportunity to stop his son from carrying out the mass shooting.
The father is standing trial on the same crimes his wife was convicted of one month prior: four counts of involuntary manslaughter. Both of the parents were charged in connection with the four students murdered by their son on Nov. 30, 2021, at the high school.
The Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office is now working to convict James Crumbley, who they say was in a position to prevent the mass shooting, but failed to do so. As they attempt to prove Crumbley is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, prosecutors are focusing heavily on the fact they believe the shooting was “preventable and foreseeable” by the shooter’s parents.
“What happened inside that school was truly a nightmare come to life, but it didn’t have to. That nightmare was preventable,” Assistant Prosecutor Marc Keast Thursday during opening statements. “There are three people in this world who are criminally responsible for the deaths of Hana, Madisyn, Tate, and Justin: The shooter, who committed murder -- no doubt, he’s responsible. But so are his parents -- but not for murder. They’re responsible for their gross negligence; for involuntary manslaughter.”
The shooter was sentenced in December to life in prison without the chance for parole for 24 felony crimes, including first-degree murder and terrorism.
Prosecutors have long alleged that James Crumbley and his wife ignored their son’s literal and figurative cries for help leading up to the massacre. The shooter had written on several occasions that his parents wouldn’t take him seriously when he asked for mental health help. Some of those writings were from the shooter’s personal journal, which is expected to be introduced in court during James Crumbley’s trial.
In their opening statement on Thursday, March 7, prosecutors focused even more heavily on what the father did -- and didn’t -- do on the day of the shooting.
“You will learn throughout this trial that [James Crumbley] was the adult, out of anyone in the world, in the best position to prevent these kids’ deaths,” Keast said. “James Crumbley was afforded what might have been the easiest, the most glaring opportunity to prevent the shooting -- a full three-and-a-half hours on Nov. 30, before the first shot was ever fired.”
Keast was referencing the infamous math worksheet on which the shooter drew violent images and messages on the morning of the shooting. That worksheet was seen by school staff and shared with the parents, who were called to the school that same morning for a meeting with a counselor.
During his opening statement, Keast walked the jury through text messages between the shooter’s parents, when they expressed concern over the worksheet drawings. Despite the drawings, and counselor’s request for them to get the shooter help that day, the parents said they had to work and couldn’t take the shooter out of school -- a decision that prosecutors say was the difference between life and death.
The parents also never told school staff about the recently purchased 9mm handgun that the shooter had access to, according to prosecutors. Given the shooter’s mental health state, and access to and desire for a deadly weapon at home, Keast said the mass shooting was reasonably foreseeable to James Crumbley.
“[...] not to everyone else in the world, but to him: The father who bought the gun; The father who raised the shooter; The father who knew what was going on in [the shooter’s] life; The father who suspected him as the school shooter, well before his name was made public -- well before anyone from the police department told [James Crumbley] it was his son,” Keast said.
Defense attorneys for the shooter’s parents have long maintained that the parents were not aware of their son’s negative mental health state, or his meticulous plans to carry out the shooting. During the defense’s opening statement, attorney Mariell Lehman said James Crumbley was “not aware that his son had access to that firearm.”
Lehman also told the jury that it was “simply not true” that James Crumbley knew something dangerous could happen.
Prosecutors made clear to the jury that they aren’t claiming James Crumbley “knew what his son was going to do.” If James Crumbley bought the handgun “knowing his son was going to commit mass murder, then he’d be charged with murder,” Keast said.
Rather, the prosecution wants to prove that the father is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which is a crime “rooted in negligence” instead of premeditation.
“James Crumbley isn’t charged with what his son did,” Keast said. “He’s charged with what he did and didn’t do on Nov. 30[, 2021].”
In response, Lehman told the jury that the prosecution’s request for them to “follow the law” when it comes to an involuntary manslaughter conviction applies to their side, too.
“We are confident that if you follow the law, you will find James Crumbley not guilty,” Lehman said.
---> Watch: Opening statements made at James Crumbley’s manslaughter trial