Your cart is currently empty!
Judge keeps one issue alive in Jennifer Crumbley’s quest for new trial
On the eve of a crucial hearing, an Oakland County judge denied several of Jennifer Crumbley’s claims that she did not get a fair trial, though she kept one key issue alive: confidential agreements the prosecution struck with two key school witnesses.
On Friday, Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews is scheduled to hear from both sides to determine whether Crumbley — the mother of the Oxford High School school shooter — should get a new trial, have her conviction overturned, or let it stand. But Matthews will take up only one claim that has been raised by Crumbley’s new defense lawyer: that the prosecution allegedly, intentionally withheld evidence from the defense, and therefore committed prosecutorial misconduct.
At issue are confidential agreements, known as proffer agreements, that the prosecutor’s office made with two school witnesses, assuring them that what they told investigators would not be used against them. The Free Press disclosed these agreements last year, triggering an appeal that now may rest with this issue.
The witnesses are a school counselor and dean of students who testified against Crumbley at trial, and helped the prosecution advance its theory that the shooter’s parents, more than anyone else, could have prevented the November 2021 tragedy.
The defense, however, maintains that the school witnesses also were to blame, but got protection, which the jury never got to hear about. Jennifer Crumbley’s appellate attorney, Michael Dezsi, argues that the agreements are an unlawful withholding of evidence, and warrants either giving his client a new trial, or throwing out her conviction.
The prosecution counters that the proffer agreements did not promise immunity or leniency, and therefore did not have to be released. It also is urging the judge to let the convictions stick, maintaining Crumbley was convicted fair and square for failing to take even the simplest of steps to prevent a tragedy.
More:Victims’ families see verdict as a milestone but not the finish line
Jennifer and James Crumbley made history last year after separate juries convicted them of involuntary manslaughter for the deaths of four students killed by their son: Hana St. Juliana, 14; Tate Myre, 16; Justin Shilling, 17, and Madisyn Baldwin, 17. Six other students and a teacher also were injured.
The Crumbleys were accused, in separate trials, of buying their son a gun, failing to properly secure it, and never disclosing it to the school during a pivotal meeting with school officials the morning of the shootings.
The Crumbleys maintain they had no idea their son was going to shoot up his school, that the gun at issue was not his to use freely and that it was hidden in an armoire dresser, unloaded, with the bullets located in a separate drawer.
The shooter, who was 15 at the time of the rampage, pleaded guilty to all his crimes and is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. He is appealing, as are his parents.
In seeking a new trial or reversal, Jennifer Crumbley’s appellate lawyer has raised several issues that he alleges led to an unfair trial against his client, though Matthews concluded they did not have merit in her Thursday opinion. Those issues are likely to be raised on appeal before the Michigan Court of Appeals. They include:
More:Jury foreperson: Jennifer Crumbley was last adult with gun. That ‘hammered it home’.
- Claims that the prosecution wrongfully accused the Crumbleys of having a “legal duty” to protect the Oxford students from their son. The defense maintains there is no such legal duty recognized in Michigan, and that the general public owes no such duty to anyone — much like a person who fails to stop a person from jumping in front of a train can’t be criminally charged.
- Claims that the prosecution wrongfully asserted two inconsistent theories by charging the shooter as an adult, yet accusing his mom of failing to control her minor son. The defense argues the prosecution can’t have it both ways. The judge disagreed.
- Claims that Jennifer Crumbley had an ineffective lawyer at trial.
- Claims that the judge wrongfully instructed the jury that it could convict Jennifer Crumbley without being in unanimous agreement. There were two theories under which the jury could convict: that Crumbley either failed to properly secure the weapon, or, that she failed to control her son. The jury was instructed that it did not have to agree as to which theory applied. The defense maintains that was improper and violated Crumbley’s rights. The judge disagreed.
The hearing deciding the fate of the convictions is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. in Oakland County Circuit Court.
Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@freepress.com
.
In a recent court hearing, the judge ruled to keep one crucial issue alive in Jennifer Crumbley’s quest for a new trial. The issue at hand revolves around the defense’s claim that crucial evidence was mishandled by law enforcement during the investigation into the Oxford High School shooting.
Despite the prosecution’s arguments against granting a new trial, the judge’s decision to focus on this specific issue gives hope to Crumbley and her legal team. This development could potentially open the door for a reexamination of the case and bring new evidence to light.
As the legal battle continues, the outcome of this pivotal issue could have far-reaching implications for Crumbley’s future. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story as more details emerge from the courtroom.
Tags:
Jennifer Crumbley, new trial, Judge, legal issues, court ruling, appeal, defense strategy, criminal case, legal system, courtroom drama, justice system, legal news
#Judge #issue #alive #Jennifer #Crumbleys #quest #trial
Leave a Reply