The Oakland County trial of James Crumbley has concluded and the jury has convicted the father of the Oxford High School shooter of involuntary manslaughter.
Michigan Public’s Briana Rice and Tracy Samilton covered the trial, and came on Stateside to talk about how prosecutors and Crumbley’s defense presented their cases.
How is this case distinct from other involuntary manslaughter cases?
Rice said that this case is unusual for an involuntary manslaughter case because this is the first time that parents are going to be held accountable for a mass shooting that their child committed.
“I think the case comes down to: was this foreseeable? Could the Crumbley parents have known that the shooter might have done this?” Rice said.
What case did the prosecution make?
One of the prosecution’s main points was that James Crumbley bought his son the gun used in the shooting four days before the shooting happened. In the most dramatic moment of her closing argument, prosecutor Karen McDonald put on nylon gloves, took out the gun that was used in the shooting, and locked it with a gun lock cable. It took less than ten seconds, showing, she said, how little effort it would have taken for James Crumbley to prevent this shooting from happening.
Another key argument for the prosecution was that the Crumbley parents met with school officials on the day of the shooting to discuss graphic drawings and several concerning messages that the shooter had made on a math worksheet. “Help me,” one of the messages said. “Blood everywhere.” “The thoughts won’t stop.” Despite reviewing the worksheet, both parents declined taking their child out of school that day.
The prosecution also pointed to James’ actions upon hearing about the shooting. After leaving the school and going to work, James Crumbley called 911 to tell the police that he thought his son might be the shooter, once he returned home and realized that the gun he had bought his son was not at home.
How is the evidence in this case different from that of Jennifer Crumbley’s case?
In the trial of Jennifer Crumbley, the shooter's mother, the prosecution cited texts that the shooter had sent her saying he was seeing demons in the house — texts that were sent months before the shooting. These texts were not permitted to be introduced in James Crumbley’s trial, as the judge said there was no evidence that he was aware of them.
“It's very difficult as a parent to say you're not grossly negligent if you don't seek mental health treatment for your son after being told something like that. She did not,” Samilton said.
What case did the defense make?
The defense attorney, Mariell Lehman, made the argument that James Crumbley did not know that his son was in distress and that there was no conversation that would lead him to believe this shooting was foreseeable.
The defense emphasized that James Crumbley was “caring” and that when he “went to the school that day, he sat next to his son and he told his son, ‘you can tell me anything. … I'm here to help you,’” Samilton reported.
How did the defense of James Crumbley’s case differ from that of his wife’s case?
“I would say that when you look at both cases and compare them, you have a very well prepared attorney in James Crumbley’s case facing a very well prepared prosecution,” Samilton said.
In contrast, Samilton recalled moments in Jennifer Crumbley’s trial that signaled issues with her attorney’s judgment.
“She made a couple of outbursts during the trial, and then, of course, her decision to put Jennifer Crumbley on the stand versus, Mr. Crumbley’s attorney's decision not to put him on the stand. You can argue from a legal standpoint that that might not have been the right move to make.”
Rice said that the ways the two parents have presented themselves relate to larger narratives about the roles mothers and fathers are expected to play. While Jennifer has been characterized as stoic and uncaring, James might be seen differently as a result of his behavior and socialized gender roles.
“I remember when Jennifer was on the stand and said that her son was a normal kid and that she wouldn't have done anything differently. Those are really memorable moments from her trial. But James, he might be seen as more sympathetic because he's crying. I think there are some gender questions here about ‘what responsibility do fathers have?’ And, ‘mothers should know more and do more.’ I think there is that narrative.”
To hear the full conversation, listen to the Stateside podcast, where we also talk to attorney and advocate Deborah LaBellee.
GUESTS ON THIS EPISODE:
- Briana Rice, criminal justice reporter for Michigan Public
- Tracy Samilton, energy and transportation reporter and producer for Michigan Public
- Deborah LaBelle, attorney and advocate
[Get Stateside on your phone: subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or YouTube Music today.]
