OXFORD, Mich. (FOX 2) – As Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of the Oxford High School shooter, works to appeal her conviction, her attorney is demanding she be released from prison.
Jennifer and her husband, James Crumbley, were both convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10-15 years in prison for their role in the Nov. 30, 2021 school shooting. The charges were brought against the couple after their then-15-year-old son brought a gun to school and killed four people.
Juries found both parents guilty.
Earlier this month, Jennifer’s attorney, Michael Dezsi, filed an appeal to her sentence, saying that her trial was “riddled with errors.”
Why does Jennifer Crumbley want out of prison?
While the appeal is pending, Dezsi says Jennifer should be allowed to post bond and be released from prison because she “has committed no crime, has never harmed anyone, and is certainly not a flight risk.”
He went on to call the prosecutors “overreaching,” and said the case was the result of “attempts to pin the failings of a nation on the back of a parent.”
According to Dezsi, sentencing guidelines recommended a sentence as short as 43 months, but Jennifer received more than a decade behind bars.
“Having Mrs. Crumbley locked up at the Michigan Department of Corrections’ Women’s Huron Valley facility not only casts a dark shadow over the justice system but rewards the prosecution of a fabricated crime, setting a very dangerous precedent,” Dezsi said in a press release.
Why is Jennifer Crumbley seeking an appeal?
Dezsi argued that evidence was withheld from the trial, including information that two key witnesses who worked at the school entered into cooperation agreements to testify against Jennifer. According to Dezski, these agreements were not disclosed.
According to the appeal filing, the agreements should have been shared with the jury because the employees – Nick Ejak and Shawn Hopkins – interacted with the shooter the day of the crime, and had the chance to search his backpack before the shooting, but did not.
“These findings merely demonstrate why Hopkins and Ejak were given Proffer Agreements in the first place, because they had obvious criminal exposure,” Dezsi wrote. “To the extent that these witnesses testified so as to shift blame away from themselves and onto the parents, the jury should have been made aware of those Proffer Agreements so that they could more accurately and fully assess their credibility.”
In the court filing, Dezsi wrote that the prosecution argued that Jennifer did not control her minor child. However, he noted that her child was convicted and sentenced as an adult.
“These theories are both factually inconsistent and mutually exclusive amounting to a violation of Mrs. Crumbley’s due process rights under both federal and state law,” he wrote.
Dezsi also argued that the jury was told that they could convict Jennifer even if their verdict was not unanimous.
The Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office responded to the appeal, saying in part that ” James and Jennifer Crumbley are the rare, grossly negligent exception, and twenty-four jurors unanimously agreed that they are responsible for the deaths of Hana, Madisyn, Tate, and Justin. Holding them accountable for their role is one important step in making our schools safer.”
The office has not responded to the latest request.
What happens next
According to court records, a hearing is scheduled for Jan. 8, 2025.
