OXFORD, Mich. – Jurors on Thursday were deliberating whether to find James Crumbley, the father of the Oxford High School shooter, guilty of involuntary manslaughter for his alleged role in the massacre.
Twelve jurors resumed deliberations on Thursday, March 14 after being handed the case on Wednesday. Both the prosecution and defense rested their cases Wednesday morning and delivered their closing arguments in the afternoon.
Through four days of witness testimony, prosecutors sought to prove that James Crumbley could have foreseen and prevented the Nov. 30, 2021, mass shooting that left four students dead and seven people injured.
Prosecutors focused much of their case on how James Crumbley stored the family’s three handguns, one of which was accessed by the shooter and used in the shooting. The prosecution also argued that the father failed to take action to help his son, despite being presented with evidence that his son’s mental health was declining and that he was going through a hard time.
---> James Crumbley not stopping home on day of Oxford shooting is big deal to prosecutors
On the third day of the trial, jurors were walked through what happened the day of the shooting, which included a school meeting with the shooter, his parents and a school counselor. Prosecutors say James Crumbley should’ve stepped in after seeing the shooter’s violent drawings on a math assignment that morning, which included phrases like “help me” and “the thoughts won’t stop.” A gun was also drawn on the worksheet, which prosecutors say exactly depicted the 9 mm handgun purchased by James Crumbley just days before.
Prosecutors have long alleged the shooter’s father bought the 9 mm firearm specifically for his son as an early Christmas present. The shooter used that gun four days later to murder four students.
Crumbley’s defense attorney argued throughout the trial that James Crumbley had no knowledge of his son’s mental health struggles, or his son’s plans to carry out a mass shooting. In the defense’s closing statements Wednesday, attorney Mariell Lehman said the shooting was not foreseeable by the father, and that there’s a distinct difference between the shooter having access and being given access to the murder weapon.
Jurors have been given a set of instructions they must follow throughout their deliberation process. The jury must agree on certain aspects in order to convict James Crumbley, otherwise he will be acquitted of all charges.
Here’s what involuntary manslaughter is, and what the jury is specifically considering.
What involuntary manslaughter is
Involuntary manslaughter is one of the lowest homicide-related charges someone can receive after a person is killed. Involuntary manslaughter happens when a person’s death resulted from another person’s negligent or criminal actions.
To qualify as involuntary manslaughter, the death was not intentional or planned by the accused, but rather technically accidental. Still, the person charged with involuntary manslaughter is believed to be responsible for the death, despite their intentions.
An involuntary manslaughter charge in Michigan is a felony and carries a punishment of up to 15 years in prison, and/or a fine of up to $7,500.
James Crumbley’s charges stem from the deaths of four Oxford High School students: 14-year-old Hana St. Juliana; 16-year-old Tate Myre; 17-year-old Madisyn Baldwin; and 17-year-old Justin Shilling.
Jury considering two theories
Similarly to the case and trial of Jennifer Crumbley, the wife of James Crumbley, the prosecution has laid out two different theories to support their charges of involuntary manslaughter. Prosecutors have the burden of proving the charges they brought against James Crumbley, and the case they presented in trial must satisfy at least one of the two theories in order for the jury to find James Crumbley guilty.
Jurors don’t need to agree on which theory was proven by prosecutors, so long as they agree that at least one of the two theories was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here are the two theories, as written by the court:
- First, the prosecutor claims that the defendant committed involuntary manslaughter because he failed to perform a legal duty.
- In the alternative, the prosecutor claims that the defendant committed involuntary manslaughter because he was grossly negligent.
“Those two theories are two different ways to prove the same crime,” the court’s jury instructions read.
When it comes to failing to perform a legal duty, prosecutors mean James Crumbley failed to perform his legal duty to protect other children from his minor child. When it comes to being grossly negligent, prosecutors specifically argue that James Crumbley stored the murder weapon in a way that allowed it to be accessed by his minor child.
The court made it clear for jurors that there can be more than one cause of death in this case. Of course, the Oxford shooter actually carried out the shooting, and has since been convicted of first-degree murder, among other crimes. But there can also be other causes of death for the four shooting victims, such as the alleged inaction on behalf of the shooter’s parents.
Jennifer Crumbley was found guilty of all four charges earlier this year.
When will the jury reach a verdict?
It’s hard to say when exactly the jury will reach a verdict in James Crumbley’s case.
Each jury is different in terms of how much time they require to deliberate. This particular jury was presented with just over four days’ worth of testimony and evidence, so they have a lot of materials to potentially review.
The jury is not allowed to deliberate unless all 12 jurors are present. Judge Cheryl Matthews said Wednesday that if the jury wishes to rewatch testimony from a witness, they have to watch the witness’ entire testimony and questioning from both sides in order to be fair.
The jury deliberated for about an hour on March 13, and resumed deliberations around 9 a.m. on March 14.
For context, the jury in Jennifer Crumbley’s trial took about two days to deliberate, and they were provided with significantly more physical evidence than jurors were in this case.
---> Jennifer Crumbley trial: The key piece of evidence that led to jury’s guilty verdict
Full jury instructions
The jury was provided with a complete list of instructions meant to guide their deliberations and how they reach their verdict. These instructions were read to them by the judge while in court, and they were also given a physical copy.
The instructions help jurors understand the law, the charges, what criteria must be met in order to reach a guilty verdict, what does and doesn’t count as evidence, and more.
You can read all of the instructions provided to this jury in the document below.