Recap Day 7: James Crumbley decision now in hands of jury
Pontiac — The case against James Crumbley, the father of the Oxford High School shooter, is now in the hands of an Oakland County jury after attorneys delivered their closing arguments Wednsesday.
Prosecutors and Crumbley's attorney clashed in their closing arguments Wednesday, with one side saying he knew his son had access to the gun and failed to act, leading to the deaths of four students in 2021, while his attorney insisted he "didn't know."
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald reiterated her argument that Crumbley, 47, had chance after chance to recognize red flags about his son and take actions that could have interrupted Ethan Crumbley's plans to shoot up his school. He shirked his legal obligation to prevent his child from harming others, she argued.
“He did nothing," said McDonald, who at one point demonstrated how quickly it is to put a trigger lock on a handgun. "He did nothing over and over and over again."
But Mariell Lehman, Crumbley's attorney, argued her client "didn't know" his son had access to his firearms or what the teen was planning. And he didn't know what was written in his son's journal. She said prosecutors would've presented evidence if he had known, but they didn't.
"James didn't know," said Lehman. “.... He did not know he had to protect others from his son. He had no idea what his son was planning to do."
Crumbley, 47, is being tried on four counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the deaths of four students his then 15-year-old son fatally shot in 2021 — Madisyn Baldwin, 16; Tate Myre, 16; Justin Shilling, 17; and Hana St. Juliana, 14. He faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted.
Nicole Beausoleil, Madisyn Baldwin's mother, leaned over and cried as McDonald described how her daughter crouched down to protect herself during the Nov. 30, 2021 shooting, a door just a few feet away.
Jury instructions
Oakland Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthew randomly selected three juror members who will now serve as alternates. The jurors excluded to be alternates include: a woman who works part-time in a dental office; a part-time music teacher; and a woman who works at the Oakland Community Health Network.
The jury is now evenly divided with six men and six women.
After delivering a lengthy set of instructions, Matthews encouraged the jury to take its time.
"We want you to be careful, keep an open mind and take your time," she said.
'He'd be charged with murder'
In her rebuttal, McDonald argued that she doesn't have to prove what James Crumbley knew. And she doesn't have to ensure jurors are 100% certain about his guilt. She said she has to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt and that James Crumbley failed to act with ordinary care.
She said if Crumbley knew his son was planning a mass shooting at Oxford, "he'd be charged with murder," she said.
McDonald also rejected the notion that school officials weren't concerned about Ethan Crumbley when they met with his parents the morning of the shooting.
"That's not what you heard," she said.
She urged the jury to use common sense in making its decision. At one point, McDonald demonstrated putting a cable lock in the murder weapon. She said it took "less than 10 seconds."
"Ten seconds," she said. "You don’t have to go find it, you don’t have to go buy it, it was provided. You just watched me do it. … Locking was one way to prevent this and it took less than 10 seconds.”
Case isn't about parental responsibility
McDonald noted that the case wasn't about guns or parental responsibility. She said parenting is the hardest job and parents are not responsible for everything their kids do.
But the case against Crumbley is so "egregious" and has such a rare set of facts that it warranted him being charged.
She ended her rebuttal noting again that Crumbley hadn't just failed his son, but the victims. She read their names.
"I say their names because they matter,” McDonald said, turning to look at the parents of Madisyn, Justin and Hana, who were sitting in the courtroom. “They matter. And that is why we’re here.”
Defense attorney's closing argument
Point by point, Lehman argued that prosecutors didn't show evidence or present testimony that showed James knew his son had access to his guns or that the teen was having mental health issues.
"James had no idea that his son was having a hard time," Lehman said.
She argued prosecutors have selectively presented evidence to make it appear Crumbley knew, and ignored, more than he did. She urged jurors to "follow the law."
“When it comes to reasonable doubt, you can have one, or you can have 10," she said.
And the shooter's journal writings and texts to his friend about asking for mental health treatment don't prove he did, Lehman argued. She said prosecutors didn't present any direct evidence he actually said anything to his father.
Reasonable doubt
Lehman said the burden of proof is on prosecutors and encouraged jurors to pay attention to what evidence and testimony wasn't presented.
She noted that counselor Shawn Hopkins or former dean of students Nick Ejak "weren't concerned" that Ethan Crumbley was a danger to anyone and didn't view him as a threat. They were more concerned about the teen's "sadness."
“(Hopkins) wanted him to see someone so the sadness didn’t get any worse,” Lehman said.
And James wasn't the only one surprised that his son was the shooter. Lehman pointed to testimony by Oxford Assistant Principal Kristy Gibson-Marshall who said she was surprised it was Ethan Crumbley.
"She didn't believe that was right. Even in those moments," she said.
'He didn't know'
Lehman repeatedly stated in her closing that her client "didn't know."
"He didn't know what was going on with his son," she said. "He didn't know what his son was planning."
She reiterated that when James Crumbley met with police immediately after the shooting, police never asked if the gun had been locked. He told them that the gun was hidden in an armoire and the ammunition was hidden under some jeans.
Neither officer told Crumbley his storage of the gun and ammunition was irresponsible, nor did they ask how his son got the gun, or if the gun was locked up, Lehman said.
Defense: Gun wasn't shooter's
Lehman pointed to the entry in the teen's journal in which he wrote that couldn't find the gun and it was "hidden."
She also challenged the suggestion the gun was the teen's.
“If it really was his son’s gun, why was it hidden in James’ bedroom?” Lehman said. “James Crumbley had no idea what his son was capable of, he had no idea what his son was planning and he had absolutely no idea his son had access to the firearm.”
Prosecutors' closing argument
McDonald said Crumbley had a "willful disregard" for a known danger and it caused the deaths of four students at Oxford High School. She argued that Crumbley was presented with the "easiest, most glaring opportunities" to prevent the deaths of the students who died but didn't take action.
"It was foreseeable and it was preventable," said McDonald.
She sought to counter the defense argument that Crumbley didn't know his son could access the gun he used to commit the shooting. When he realized what his son had done, Crumbley never questioned how he got the gun, McDonald said.
“You know why he didn’t say it? He didn’t say it because he already knew. He knew his son had access to the gun.”
McDonald also touched on what Oxford school officials testified to during the trial — that they didn't view Ethan Crumbley as a threat — noting that jurors may not agree with that.
But James Crumbley "doesn’t get a pass because you don’t think the teachers did enough. He doesn’t get a pass," she said.
'Beware argument this could be you'
McDonald rejected the argument that any parent could be held accountable for parents who buy their children a car or a gun and that "this could be you."
"Beware of the claim that this could be you. Beware," she said. "This couldn’t be everybody. This couldn’t be the person who takes their kid hunting. That doesn't create a criminal charge. It couldn’t happen simply because you purchased a firearm."
Shooter's own words
McDonald read multiple texts from the shooter during her closing, in which the teen said he needed help but his parents would be mad. The teen wrote about going to the ER or asking his parents to see a doctor.
The texts don't paint the shooter in a better light, McDonald said, but as a kid in crisis trying to get help.
“They just make him look desperate and sad and wanting help," she said.
And then on the day of the shooting, Crumbley saw the words on the disturbing math worksheet.
“How many times does this kid have to say it (help me)? He says it in his journal, he says it to his friend,” McDonald said. “That isn’t enough. He writes the words ‘help me’ on a piece of paper. … What does he say? He says ‘we’ve got to go to work.’”
He 'failed to act'
McDonald said Crumbley waited 14 minutes from the time he rushed home to check on the family's gun and found the 9mm missing.
He and Jennifer both knew by 1:23 p.m. that the gun and bullets were missing. But he didn’t call 911 until 1:34 p.m., McDonald said, after being on the phone with his wife for 10 minutes on the way home and from 1:30 p.m. to 1:33 p.m.
McDonald said Crumbley failed multiple people on Nov. 30, 2021, including his own son.
"James Crumbley failed his son in a tragic way," McDonald said. "But he didn’t just fail his son. He failed Hana. He failed Madisyn. He failed Tate. And he failed Justin. He failed to perform his legal duty to prevent these kids from being killed and he failed their parents too.”
The case against Crumbley
Prosecutors have sought to show Crumbley was the adult "in the best position" to take actions that would have interrupted his son’s plans to go through with the shooting, but did not: He did not secure the 9mm SIG Sauer handgun that he bought a few days earlier for his son to use and left the cable lock that came with it unopened.
But most glaring, he saw the violent drawings his son made on a math worksheet the morning Nov. 30, hours before the shooting, and did not immediately seek mental health treatment despite the advice of his son's school counselor.
“What happened inside that school was truly a nightmare come to life. But it didn’t have to be,” Oakland County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Marc Keast said during opening arguments last week. “That nightmare was preventable and it was foreseeable.”
But Mariell Lehman, Crumbley's attorney, has that her client didn't know his son posed a threat to others, nor did he know his son knew where Crumbley had hidden the 9mm handgun.
“James Crumbley was not aware that his son had access to that firearm. You will hear testimony that access was not allowed,” Lehman said during opening arguments. “He did not purchase that gun with the knowledge that his son may use it against other people.”
She said even school professionals, who have training to detect when a child is in crisis or is a danger, did not believe during the Nov. 30 meeting the shooter posed a threat to others.
Relatives of three of the four students who died in the shooting have been in the courtroom throughout the trial. Crumbley's father and stepmother also were in the courthouse Wednesday but declined comment.
More:Who will decide James Crumbley's fate? A look at the jury
Defense begins
Lehman, James Crumbley's attorney, rested her case Wednesday morning after calling Crumbley's sister as the sole witness. Karen Crumbley saw the shooter a few times in 2021 and testified she didn't notice anything that concerned her.
Karen, who lives in Florida, said their mother died in early April 2021, and while James was already in Florida with his mother, Jennifer and the shooter drove down to be with the family once she died.
Karen said she didn’t recall seeing or hearing anything concerning with the shooter, nor did James ever express any concern about his son’s behavior or mental health.
She also saw the Crumbley family again in June 2021 and stayed with them in their Oxford home for several days. She did not see anything concerning then either, Karen said.
“If I saw anything (concerning), I would’ve addressed it," Karen said. "If I would’ve known anything, I would’ve talked to him. I would’ve took him home with me if there was any kind of inclination that anything was wrong.”
During cross examination, Karen said she would have found the statement "help me" and drawing of a gun, both of which were on the math worksheet the shooter was drawing on Nov. 30, 2021, to be concerning.
Karen told police in November 2021 that having guns in the house was not unusual, but getting a gun for a child would be. On Wednesday, she elaborated to say that giving a gun to use at a range was different.
"If you're getting a gun specifically for him to use at his leisure, that would be different," she told James' defense attorney, Mariell Lehman. "But with adult supervision, I don't see anything wrong with it."
ATF agent returns to stand
Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives Agent Brett Brandon briefly retook the stand Wednesday to testify that the Crumbleys did not leave the parking lot at the art studio in Detroit where they were ultimately found by police on Dec. 4, 2021 and arrested.
They left the building more than a half dozen times to smoke or move their vehicle within the lot, but they remained in the area of the lot.
More:Recap Day 5: School officials, ATF agent testify about shooter, gun storage in James Crumbley trial
More:Recap Day 4: James Crumbley to police after shooting: Son was 'perfect kid,' didn't get in trouble
More:Recap Day 3: Audio of 911 call James Crumbley made after Oxford shooting: 'I'm really freaking out'
More:Recap Day 2: Prosecutors, defense attorney finalize jury for James Crumbley trial
More:Recap Day 1: Jury selection begins in James Crumbley trial