By Selina Guevara, Erik Ortiz and Adrienne Broaddus —
NBC News
The charges brought by prosecutors against the mother and father of teenager Ethan Crumbley, who opened fire at a Michigan school, were identical and depended on convincing jurors that, although neither of them knew that their son was planning an attack , both failed to fulfill their legal responsibilities to help prevent it.
But the involuntary manslaughter convictions in two separate trials – one last month against Jennifer Crumbley and the other last Thursday against James Crumbley – occurred under very different circumstances, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald said Friday.
“I think from an evidentiary standpoint,
they are both very different cases
,” McDonald said.
“Jennifer's case involved a lot of information that we knew she had.
And the case against James was much more about the gun, because he bought it.”
Jennifer Crumbley and James Crumbley.Getty;
Detroit Free Press via AP
Ethan, now 17, pleaded guilty as an adult to murder, terrorism and other charges in the deaths of four Oxford High School students in 2021. He was sentenced to life in prison.
While the central evidence and witnesses were similar in the two trials – the first time in the United States that parents have been charged in a mass school shooting committed by a son – prosecutors had to show how James and Jennifer Crumbley were individually guilty while facing two different defense strategies and different juries, most of whose members were parents and gun owners or familiar with firearms.
“It was a very difficult case to pursue,” said Mark Chutkow, an attorney who previously headed the criminal division of the U.S. attorney's office in Detroit, and who was not affiliated with the case.
Separate prosecution strategies
A request for Jennifer Crumbley, 45, and James, 47, to have separate trials was granted in November.
McDonald stated Friday that the prosecution “didn't want to do two trials,” but agreed that doing so was necessary because “finger pointing” between the two defendants in a single trial could have ultimately led to a mistrial. .
“It's something we couldn't risk,” McDonald said.
During her trial, Jennifer Crumbley took the stand in her own defense and declared that the gun “was her thing,” referring to her husband's responsibility to keep the 9mm Sig Sauer pistol and the family's two other firearms. .
James Crumbley
bought the gun for Ethan
the day after Thanksgiving, she said.
Ethan, then 15, used it in the Oxford High School shooting four days later.
In James' defense, his lawyers highlighted his cooperation while being questioned by police after the massacre, in contrast to Jennifer, who seemed reluctant to hand over her phone and was the first to mention the possibility of hiring a lawyer.
Prosecutors had more than 400 pieces of evidence against Jennifer Crumbley, including text messages and photos on her cellphone, as well as a video of her with Ethan at a shooting range the weekend before the shooting.
Among the most significant pieces of evidence were messages Ethan sent to her mother in which she told them that she saw “demons” in her house and she claimed that she was haunted and asked him to respond.
Jennifer Crumbley's extramarital affair was also the subject of attention, including the testimony of the man she was having, which was another way for prosecutors to not only suggest that she was neglecting her son, but that the incident was part of a scheme. broader pattern.
Jennifer Crumbley also
stated that she knew her son had emotional problems
, in part, because his best friend had moved away.
“There were a couple of times where Ethan had expressed anxiety about taking tests, anxiety about what he was going to do after high school, whether it was college or the Army,” he told jurors.
“So he expressed those concerns to me.
Not to a level where he felt like he needed to see a psychiatrist or a mental health professional right away.”
And she stressed during her testimony: “I don't think I am a failure as a mother.”
After Jennifer Crumbley was convicted, a juror told NBC News that the fact that Jennifer Crumbley had been the last known person to handle the 9mm pistol after taking her son to the range helped solidify that she had a responsibility to prevent the shooting, even if she didn't specifically know Ethan was planning it.
He added that other jurors were convinced by the evidence in Ethan's diaries.
The teen had written, “My parents won't listen to me about help or a therapist,” and he expressed his desire to “shoot up” at school.
Jeffrey Swartz, a former Florida county judge and professor at Cooley College of Law in Michigan and Florida, said that in Jennifer Crumbley's case, prosecutors “had to make her look like a neglectful mother.”
But in the case of James Crumbley,
the evidence was stronger
because he had told investigators that he was the last person who had handled the gun, hidden it in a closet and placed the bullets under some jeans in another drawer. .
Prosecutors “knew who bought the gun,” Swartz noted.
“They knew that she was not responsible for the gun, but James was.”
The evidence showed that James Crumbley knew how to safely store a firearm because he had two others.
Investigators found a safe for his gun, a cable lock for his 9mm handgun and a pamphlet about gun safety around minors in the home.
“They had all the mechanisms to store it properly, and they didn't,” Swartz stated.
“That's a problem too.”
In his closing argument, McDonald held up a gun to demonstrate to the jury how quick it was to attach a cable lock to a gun.
“There's always a risk that it [the demonstration] could go wrong in the moment, but it was easy,” McDonald said Friday.
Chutkow said that probably left a lasting impression on jurors, and compared it to the way OJ Simpson, during his double murder trial in 1995, tried unsuccessfully to put on gloves found at the crime scene.
His defense attorney, Johnnie Cochran, famously said: “If you don't have any use for them, you have to acquit him.”
The “stunts” can be risky, Chutkow said.
“If you screw up and it doesn't turn out well, it can sink your case.
But she [the prosecutor] did it effectively.”
Different defenses
Unlike his wife, James Crumbley waived his right to testify.
Swartz noted that Jennifer Crumbley “had no choice” but to take the stand because she needed to tell jurors that she had entrusted her husband with custody of the weapons.
James Crumbley, however, was already at a disadvantage because he was on trial after his wife had been found guilty and, by taking the stand, he would have exposed himself to even greater scrutiny over what he did, or did not do, in relation to the weapon.
Ethan Crumbley is escorted from court on July 27, 2023, in Pontiac, Michigan. Associated Press
At the center of both trials was also a drawing that Ethan made during his math homework that featured a gun, a shooting victim, and messages like: “Thoughts don't stop.
Help me".
A teacher alerted school administrators, and the Crumbleys were summoned to Oxford High School on the morning of the shooting.
But school staff testified in both trials that the parents never warned them that Ethan had access to a gun or offered to take him home, claiming they had to work.
Jennifer Crumbley worked in marketing and James Crumbley was a DoorDash delivery driver.
At James Crumbley's trial, a cybercrime expert testified that Crumbley started his job at DoorDash after the school meeting, and then stopped by the family's home four times, suggesting he
had the opportunity to check that the weapons were well stored
.
Mariell Lehman, Crumbley's attorney, counterattacked the prosecution's witnesses during their cross-examination, particularly shifting blame onto school staff because they were aware of the drawing and Ethan's problems, and suggesting they could have done more.
“With all of this, all of the knowledge that you had on November 30, 2021 [...], you didn't feel that [Ethan Crumbley] was a threat and you didn't feel like you had reasonable suspicion to look in his backpack?”
Lehman asked a former school principal, who responded, “No.”
In his closing argument, Lehman said the prosecution had to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but did not present any evidence to show that James Crumbley knew his son was a danger to the public or that he had access to the gun.
Her presentation was very different from that of Shannon Smith, Jennifer Crumbley's lawyer, who acknowledged that the mother had a "disordered life" but urged jurors not to use that against her because any of them could find themselves in the place of your client.
“This case is very dangerous for parents,” he said.
It is unclear whether Jennifer or James Crumbley will appeal their convictions.
Smith declined to comment, and Lehman said in a statement that James Crumbley “feels terrible” for the students who were killed and is “obviously disappointed with the outcome.”
The Crumbleys
each face up to 15 years in prison for four counts of involuntary manslaughter
.
In Michigan, felonies stemming from the same event must be concurrent, so the most the judge can impose is 15 years total.
For now, both have something else in common: they will be sentenced on April 9.