OAKLAND COUNTY, Mich. – The attorney for James Crumbley, the father of the Oxford High School shooter, urged a judge to grant him a new trial on Friday.
A motion hearing happened before Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews on Friday, April 11. The father didn’t physically appear in the courtroom because he requested to appear for the hearing via Zoom.
This hearing comes after Crumbley’s appellate attorney, Alona Sharon, filed a motion requesting a new trial due to the alleged discovery violations with the proffer agreements that were made between the prosecution and two school employees and the shooter’s right to assert the Fifth Amendment.
Before this hearing, the prosecution had filed a motion in response to this request, for the judge to review, claiming that it was “without merit” and should be denied.
--> James Crumbley’s claims for requesting new trial are ‘without merit,’ prosecutors say
You can watch the full hearing in the video below:
Alleged discovery violations with proffer agreements
In court, Sharon addressed the proffer agreements that the prosecution made with Nick Ejak, the former dean of students at Oxford High School, and Shawn Hopkins, the former counselor at Oxford High School. She argued that these agreements were a form of informal immunity that would’ve been required to be disclosed and claimed that the prosecution had presented evidence to the defense 34 times, yet never disclosed the proffer agreements.
Sharon argued that a defendant has a constitutional right to present evidence that is favorable to themselves, and if a violation is intentional, then a severe sanction is warranted, according to case law.
--> Oxford counselor, admin have proffer agreements with prosecutors: What that means
“So, what if I agree that the prosecutor violated the rules with regard to discovery?” the judge asked. “What if I agree with that?”
The judge further said she wanted to know what the remedy would be if there was a discovery violation.
Sharon said under court rule and case law, the judge has wide discretion to grant an appropriate remedy, guided by a variety of considerations.
In this case, Sharon said none of the listed remedies are helpful because the prosecutor didn’t disclose the agreements until after Crumbley was convicted. So, another applicable order from the judge would be just under the circumstances, according to case law.
Remedy for violations would be new trial, attorney says
Sharon believes the remedy would be a new trial.
“Because it is the only way to make Mr. Crumbley whole,” Sharon said. “It is the only way to correct the violation of the court rule. If someone could suggest to me some other sanction that could remedy this wrong, I’m happy to hear it, but there isn’t one.”
Sharon also questioned how the prosecution team consists of a combined 83 years of legal experience, yet didn’t know that they could bestow immunity to Hopkins and Ejak with the agreements and were required to disclose them.
Prosecution: Conviction was possible without the school employees’ testimony
Keast said the defense wasn’t deprived of a “robust cross examination” due to the agreements.
At this point, Keast addressed how the proffer agreements were made so they could get truthful information from the men under the promise that they wouldn’t use the information if charges were brought later on, but said it wasn’t immunity.
Keast said the proffer agreements hadn’t been revisited since they were made in 2021, and never came up again. The prosecutor also said he didn’t agree with counsel’s interpretation of the court rule.
While Sharon claimed he had 34 times to choose to turn over the proffer agreements, Keast said that’s not true because he didn’t revisit them.
The prosecution also pointed out other factors in the case, including the drawings on the math assignment and the unsecured gun, and said it was “everything else that Crumbley knew” that convicted him,
Keast said the conviction was possible without Ejak and Hopkins’ testimony.
Validity of shooter’s assertion of Fifth Amendment
The shooter’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment right to silence was also a key point in Sharon’s argument for a new trial.
The points of Matthews not allowing the shooter to testify and the claims that Crumbley’s trial attorney, Mariell Lehman, didn’t object to this were specifically addressed.
The judge said before the trials, Shannon Smith, Jennifer Crumbley’s defense attorney, said that she needed the shooter as a witness, and Matthews told her that he couldn’t take the Fifth in front of a jury.
Smith still thought he could be compelled to testify, which Matthews said shocked her, but the judge said she encouraged her to file a motion.
Lehman was there for that conversation, but also knew you couldn’t call a witness knowing they would invoke the Fifth.
“I think there was a feeling of shock when she (Smith) said that because I think everyone at that time truly believed that calling the shooter as a witness would be tantamount to dropping a bomb in the middle of the courtroom,” Matthews said.
Sharon claimed that case law clearly states that when an attorney or defendant makes a blanket invocation, the court must inquire.
The attorney said the shooter should have been brought in for a hearing outside of the jury, according to case law, to determine if the invocation is valid.
Sharon also said that there is a “distinct possibility” that the shooter would have testified in his parents’ trials.
The judge said the right was invoked over and over again by his counsel and that she doesn’t believe that any questions could have been asked that were already covered in his Miller hearing.
Sharon also pointed to the report from the shooter’s psychological evaluation at the state’s Center for Forensic Psychiatry in which the shooter allegedly said he never told his parents that he was suicidal, and other questions he answered during that. Matthews said just because he answered questions in a forensic interview didn’t mean he could be compelled to testify under oath.
Attorney says evidentiary hearing would remedy issue over assertion
Crumbley’s attorney said the only way to remedy the fact that Matthews didn’t bring the shooter in and ask him about his assertion is with an evidentiary hearing. The conversation then went as follows:
Matthews: “Okay, so you want me to bring the shooter in and ask him.”
Sharon: “I want the court to make sure that it was a valid invocation and that it was appropriate. That’s how you correct the mistake.”
Matthews: “I guess I would have to say that I’m satisfied that he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights.”
Sharon: “That’s not the question.”
Matthews: “OK.”
Sharon: “The question is whether or not the blanket assertion is appropriate. Respectfully.”
Matthews: “I’m feeling confident, respectfully.”
Final statements during court
In closing, Sharon said, “The prosecution pivots from the attention on its misconduct to the absolutely horrific murders that happened in this case, rather than focusing or even acknowledging their own misconduct.”
The attorney claims it’s a blatant attempt to distract from the fact that they failed to give James Crumbley a fair trial.
Keast said that the father was convicted for all of the actions he committed, and the evidence was overwhelming.
“We prosecute for the victims,” Keast said. “James Crumbley was convicted because of the choices that he made...It was James Crumbley’s gross negligence.”
Jennifer Crumbley’s request for new trial
Jennifer Crumbley was also in court recently as she works to get a new trial.
Matthews heard arguments from the mother’s attorney, Michael Dezsi, on Friday, Jan. 31, who also made arguments about alleged discovery violations with the proffer agreements.
The judge said she would hear arguments on this matter, but wouldn’t hear anything about the publication relations firms that Dezsi accused the prosecution of paying to engage in a “smear campaign” against the Crumbley parents.
--> Prosecution paid $100K to PR firms in ‘smear campaign’ against Crumbley parents, attorney says
In this hearing, as well as the one for James Crumbley’s request for a new trial on Friday, April 11, the judge had said that she was likely in agreement about there being a discovery violation.
Matthews hasn’t made any decisions yet, but said she was waiting until after James Crumbley’s hearing was held on Friday to decide on Jennifer Crumbley’s hearing.
The judge told Keast and Sharon she doesn’t expect to have a response in less than a month, but would do her best to have one as soon as possible.
Background
James and Jennifer Crumbley were convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with their son’s actions in the Oxford High School Shooting on Nov. 30, 2021, which left four students -- 14-year-old Hana St. Juliana; 16-year-old Tate Myre; 17-year-old Madisyn Baldwin; and 17-year-old Justin Shilling -- dead and seven others injured.
They were sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison, marking the first time parents in the U.S. have been convicted in connection with a mass shooting carried out by their child.
Their son pleaded guilty to all 24 charges and was sentenced to life in prison without parole in December 2023.
In December 2024, a judge refused to allow the shooter withdraw his guilty plea.
