OXFORD, Mich. – A jury on Thursday found the father of the Oxford High School shooter guilty of involuntary manslaughter, making him the second-ever parent of a U.S. school shooter to be charged and convicted in connection with the shooting.
James Crumbley was declared guilty by a jury on Thursday, March 14, just over one month after his wife was convicted of the same four crimes. Both parents were charged in connection with the four students murdered by their son at the high school on Nov. 30, 2021.
Jurors reached their guilty verdict after several hours of deliberation, which followed just over four days of witness testimony at James Crumbley’s trial.
Theories jurors had to consider
Similarly to the case and trial of Jennifer Crumbley, the wife of James Crumbley, the prosecution laid out two different theories to support their charges of involuntary manslaughter. Prosecutors had the burden of proving the charges they brought against James Crumbley, and the case they presented in trial must’ve satisfied at least one of the two theories in order for the jury to find James Crumbley guilty.
Jurors didn’t need to agree on which theory was proven by prosecutors, so long as they agreed that at least one of the two theories was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here were those 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.
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, James Crumbley’s wife was found guilty of the four same charges earlier this year.
When presenting their verdict to the court, the jury does not explain how the verdict was reached. Instead, a juror can decide to openly talk about the case -- with the media or otherwise -- after a verdict was reached and the trial has ended.
The jury forewoman from the trial of Jennifer Crumbley did speak to the media about the case after that trial ended in February. The forewoman shared then that a key factor in their decision to convict Jennifer Crumbley was the fact that she was the last known adult to possess the murder weapon, according to the evidence they were shown.
It’s possible one or more jurors from James Crumbley’s trial could speak about the case in the future and offer more insight into their verdict.
---> Why we may never know where murder weapon was in days before Oxford shooting
What is involuntary manslaughter?
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.
From the trial
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.
---> James Crumbley’s gun safe was locked with default code, detective testifies
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.
---> Click here to see all of the witness testimony made throughout the trial
Deeper dive: Prosecution’s case
The prosecution had long accused James and Jennifer Crumbley of being grossly negligent toward their son by failing to provide proper care when he reported having hallucinations and struggling with his mental health. Instead, the parents purchased a handgun for their son and failed to address concerns presented by school staff leading up to the shooting, prosecutors argued.
Gross negligence in Michigan means that a person willfully disregarded the results to others “that might follow from an act or failure to act,” according to the state. In this case, the parents were accused of demonstrating a significant lack of concern about their son’s emotional state and actions, and what he might do to himself or others without proper intervention from them.
Prosecutors believe the parents knew that their son posed a danger to others, and failed to provide “ordinary care” that could have prevented the mass shooting. According to prosecutors, that ordinary care could’ve looked like taking their son home from school when called in for a meeting the morning of the shooting, or looking in his backpack during that meeting for the recently purchased gun, or storing that gun securely at their home, among other things.
Michigan law doesn’t define one way in which ordinary care is exercised, prosecutors said last year. Parents do a have “duty of care,” however, which is their legal obligation to exercise reasonable care for their children -- which looks like providing food, housing, schooling, health care (including mental health), and the like. The parents also had a duty to protect other children from their minor child, under the law.
Prosecutors have argued the parents neglected their son by failing to provide him with appropriate mental health care in the months before the shooting. During a Court of Appeals hearing last year, the defense agreed that the parents handled their circumstances poorly.
The defense said then that the parents could have gotten their son into therapy, and said the parents weren’t well equipped to handle several factors in this case. “I will concede that these parents made tremendously bad decisions,” Jennifer Crumbley’s defense attorney Shannon Smith said, in part, last year.
Still, the defense argued then that the parents could not have foreseen the mass shooting based on what they knew. On the other side, prosecutors say that the parents had significant knowledge about their son’s poor mental state and his interest in guns and shooting, and could have foreseen such a tragedy.
---> Mother of Oxford shooter points finger at husband for gun storage, texts to lawyer
Some evidence excluded
Some evidence was excluded from James Crumbley’s trial, and was supposed to be excluded from Jennifer Crumbley’s trial.
The judge previously granted a request from the parents of the Oxford High School shooter, allowing certain evidence related to the shooter to be excluded from their trials. Much of that evidence did still get introduced during Jennifer Crumbley’s trial, however.
---> Evidence of Jennifer Crumbley’s affair now allowed at trial: What that means for prosecutors
Lawyers for the parents asked Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews to exclude some evidence from both trials to prevent unnecessary prejudice among the jury and ensure a fair trial. Judge Matthews partly approved their requests, deciding that the following evidence may not be used in the parents’ trials: the parents’ infidelity; content from the shooter’s additional Instagram accounts; the messiness of their home, and the fact that alcohol and marijuana were present there; the shooter’s internet searches; and the shooter’s Nazi coin.
Much of the evidence barred from trial was excluded because of their relevancy, or lack thereof, or because it’s believed the parents had no knowledge of certain things, such as the shooter’s multiple social media accounts. Jennifer Crumbley’s attorneys filed a new motion last November requesting evidence of the shooter’s alleged bird mutilation and killing be excluded from her approaching trial.
“It is clear that the shooter mutilated baby birds on more than one occasion, texted a friend about details of mutilating birds, videorecorded himself doing so, and photographed vile and disgusting images of his actions,” the motion reads, in part. However, the defense argues that the shooter “intentionally hid” any evidence of bird mutilation from his parents.
“The shooter’s ‘bird evidence’ is irrelevant to whether Mrs. Crumbley committed involuntary manslaughter, especially considering there is no evidence to show she was aware of the shooter’s disgusting acts with birds.” The defense goes on to say that due to the horrific nature of the evidence, admitting it in court would only serve to “inflame the passions of a jury.”
The judge granted that motion in December 2023.
Judge Matthews had also previously ruled against part of the defense’s earlier motion to exclude certain evidence. The court has said it will allow evidence related to violent video games played by the shooter; intoxication or drug use by the parents at the time of the shooting or when the shooter accessed the gun in their home; and the parents’ horseback riding.
Why parents stood trial separately
Attorneys for James and Jennifer Crumbley filed motions on Nov. 13, 2023, requesting they stand trial separately for the four counts of involuntary manslaughter they face in connection with the Oxford shooting. They were initially set to be tried together as co-defendants starting on Jan. 23, 2024.
The Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office filed their responses with the Oakland County Circuit Court the same day, expressing support for the motions filed by the couple. But while agreeing the parents are legally entitled to separate trials, prosecutors say two trials will have a negative impact for many groups of people.
“The People admit that the defendant is entitled to a separate trial because some of the evidence introduced against the codefendant at trial would be damaging to the defendant,” the prosecutors’ filing reads. “Separate trials in this case come at significant cost to victims, witnesses, taxpayers, and the additional jurors who will serve. But the Constitution affords the defendant that right, and the People agree that the defendant is entitled to a separate trial.”
In their filings on Nov. 13, prosecutors said they agree that a conflict exists as it relates to jointly trying the shooter’s parents, but also said they raised the issue of a potential conflict on several occasions more than a year ago. Prosecutors previously sought to ensure the defendants knew of this conflict as they agreed to be represented by two separate attorneys who work under the same firm.
The judge ruled in favor of the parents, deciding that they can stand trial separately. Jennifer Crumbley stood trial first beginning in January. James Crumbley stood trial second, beginning on March 7.
Shooter sentenced to life
The Oxford High School shooter was sentenced on Dec. 8, 2023, to life in prison without the chance for parole for murdering four students, injuring seven people, and launching a terrorist attack in 2021.
After hours of emotional testimony delivered at the shooter’s sentencing hearing, Oakland County Judge Kwamé Rowe handed down the harshest possible sentence to the now-17-year-old shooter. Just following the two-year anniversary of the Nov. 30, 2021 massacre, the shooter was sentenced to a life in prison for the 24 felonies he’s been convicted of.
The shooter will not ever be eligible for parole.
“The terror that he caused in the state of Michigan, and in Oxford, is a true act of terrorism. Respectfully, the defendant is the rare juvenile before this court,” Judge Rowe said, referencing the rarity of sentencing a minor to life in prison.
The judge said the court believes the sentence of life in prison is “in the best interest of justice, as well as proportionate to the needs of this case.”
---> Why the Oxford shooter didn’t testify at his mother’s manslaughter trial
More -- Victims families join Oakland County prosecutor in press conference after James Crumbley verdict
“Today, a 12-person jury unanimously found James Crumbley, the father of the Oxford High School shooter, guilty as charged for his gross negligence, which ultimately played a causal role in the deaths of four OHS students. This guilty verdict, along with those found against the shooter’s mother, Jennifer Crumbley, won’t bring back the lives of these four students, but it represents one more step towards holding everyone responsible accountable under the law, which is justice for the victims’ families and the Oxford community.
We are eager for the decisions of both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in our civil lawsuits. We are resolute in our determination to hold Oxford Community Schools and various OCS employees accountable, as they could have prevented the shooting, as indicated in their own district’s Guidepost Solutions investigative report. Until everyone responsible for this tragedy is fully and legally held accountable for their role, our clients and our firm remain steadfast in our fight for justice.”
Ven Johnson, President of Ven Johnson Law
“As I have said at each step of these legal proceedings, my first thoughts are always with the families of the victims and the community so terribly impacted by this tragedy. You have my unwavering support. I know that these proceedings are not a re-opening of a wound, it is tearing wider a wound that has yet to heal. Each time my staff re-lives that terrible day in that school through their testimony, I can see the anguish in their faces. As this is the last criminal trial, I pray in the days ahead there will be less traumatic moments and more peaceful ones.
“The unconscionable actions of a troubled son and the inexplicably tragic inaction of two adults to exercise even the most basic responsible parenting for their son forever changed four families and the Oxford community. If you’re very first thought when you hear about an active shooter at your child’s school isn’t, ‘Is he OK?’ but to worry if your son is the shooter or to rush home to find out if the gun you irresponsibly left unsecure is still there, then you should’ve done something in advance. There were so many inflection points where they could’ve changed the course of events, including when they refused to bring their child home on the day of the shooting.
“James Crumbley now stands guilty of involuntary manslaughter – joining his wife and son as convicted felons – in the deaths of four Oxford High School students. I applaud and thank the jurors for reaching a fair and just verdict in what was surely a difficult and emotionally draining experience for them. I’m also grateful for the prosecution team and my investigators who worked tirelessly on this case. “I hope this verdict brings the families of Hana, Justin, Tate, and Madisyn a small measure of justice.”
Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard
“Four children are dead because of the gross negligence of the shooter’s parents. In Michigan, a parent has a legal duty and James Crumbley did not meet that duty. His failure to act led to the deaths of Madisyn, Tate, Hana, and Justin. I know this verdict will not bring them back, but I hope it will serve as an example of the importance of holding those who enable gun violence accountable. My office will continue to seek justice on behalf of all victims of gun violence and champion the common-sense reforms we need to prevent gun violence and end this cycle of tragedy.”
“Another guilty verdict does not bring back Madisyn, Tate, Hana and Justin, but this is justice for the families and community - and for that I am grateful. I am also grateful for the dedicated efforts of Prosecutor Karen McDonald and her team on this groundbreaking case.”
Oakland County Executive Dave Coulter