As James Crumbley argued for a new trial or to have his conviction thrown out Friday in Oakland County Circuit Court, new details emerged about two hotly contested issues involving his son’s 2021 mass shooting at Oxford High School — how the boy obtained the gun and his mental illness, two key points that helped convince jurors to convict him and his wife in historic trials last year.
According to arguments made by Crumbley’s new lawyer, Alona Sharon, the shooter told investigators that he snuck into his parents’ bedroom while they were sleeping and stole the gun from their room, where the parents say it was hidden in an armoire, unlocked and unloaded. The defense argues this bolsters the parents’ claims that their son did not have free access to the gun; that they took measures to hide it; and that there was no law at the time that mandated the weapon be locked.
The judge noted the parents may have hidden the gun, but not very well.
Sharon also disclosed another detail that addresses perhaps an even more controversial issue in this case — the shooter’s mental health. According to Sharon, the shooter told a forensic investigator on multiple occasions that he never asked his parents for help with mental health issues, nor did he ever tell them he was suicidal, reportedly because he didn’t want them to think he wasn’t normal. This, she argues, contradicts the prosecution’s theory that the Crumbleys knew their son was mentally ill but ignored his pleas for help, an accusation that the jury foreman in the father’s case said helped convince him to convict James Crumbley.
At issue for Sharon is that the jury never got to hear any of this because the shooter did not testify in his father’s case — he invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify to prevent self-incrimination — and his mental health records also were not disclosed at trial. Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews had previously held that the shooter’s medical records were confidential, and that it was only the shooter who could decide whether to share them or not. She also upheld the shooter’s right to not incriminate himself by taking the stand.
On the eve of the mother, Jennifer Crumbley’s, trial, which preceded James Crumbley’s trial, the shooter’s lawyers alerted the court that the shooter would not be testifying in his parents’ cases and refused to have his medical records disclosed.
All of this information was disclosed during a 90-minute hearing that focused on whether the judge should order a new trial for James Crumbley, or vacate his conviction, on prosecutorial misconduct grounds. Specifically, James Crumbley alleges that Oakland County prosecutors unlawfully withheld from him the existence of proffer agreements that it brokered with two key witnesses who testified against him at trial. These agreements, which were made with two school officials who met with the shooter and his parents hours before the massacre, protected the witnesses from having any statements they made to investigators from being held against them.
Sharon argues it was these two witnesses who helped convince a jury to convict Crumbley on four counts of involuntary manslaughter for the deaths of four students — Hana St. Juliana, 14; Tate Myre, 16; Justin Shilling, 17, and Madisyn Baldwin, 17. Six other students and a teacher also were injured. — by his son in the Nov. 30, 2021 Oxford High School massacre. Moreover, she has argued, these witnesses would not have testified without these agreements, and that the prosecution could not have won its case without their testimony.
The prosecution, however, maintains these agreements did not have to be disclosed because no immunity was ever granted to the witnesses. Moreover, it argues, the evidence was so overwhelming against James Crumbley, that he would have been convicted even without the testimony of the two school officials.
Judge Matthews didn’t rule on the request Friday, saying she hoped to have a written ruling complete in about a month. Both sides, meanwhile, gave her plenty to think about as she decides this weighty issue in a case that put parents everywhere in America on notice.
James Crumbley and his wife, Jennifer, made history last year when they became the first parents in the nation convicted for a school shooting committed by their child. They were convicted in separate trials of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10-15 years in prison over their roles in the shooting. Prosecutors said they ignored their son’s mental health issues, bought him a gun, failed to properly secure the weapon and did not notify school officials about it during a pivotal meeting just hours before the shooting.
The Crumbleys, however, maintain they never knew their son had mental heath issues, never knew he had plans to shoot up his school, and that the gun at issue was not his to use freely, but secured unloaded in a bedroom armoire. Both are appealing their convictions.
Defense repeats old claim: This was not foreseeable
To the chagrin of the Crumbleys, the prosecution convinced multiple courts that the shooting was foreseeable — an issue that weighed heavily with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which eventually concluded there was enough evidence to send the Crumbleys cases to trial.
The defense, however, has long argued that this wasn’t foreseeable and continued to do so in court Friday.
“It wasn’t foreseeable. It simply wasn’t. This kid has never been in trouble. His attendance is solid. He has not been suspended. You’re talking about a kid who has no history of behavioral problems or fights at school,” Sharon said.
The judge pointed out, however, that one day before the massacre, the shooter was caught researching bullets at school.
“It was a hobby,” Sharon responded, explaining that going to a shooting range is a “total normal hobby” that the shooter and other kids enjoy with their parents, including in Oxford.
“That is nothing out of the ordinary,” Sharon said.
Judge Cheryl Matthews listens to Alona Sharon, James Crumbley’s appellate attorney and Oakland County assistant prosecuting attorney Marc Keast at the Oakland County Court House in Pontiac on Friday, April 11, 2025.
Both sides also spent much time butting heads over the proffer agreements, which were first disclosed by the Free Press last year. These were offered to Oxford High School Counselor Shawn Hopkins and Dean of Students Nicholas Ejak, who both met with the parents hours before the shooting and concluded their son was sad, but not a danger to himself or others.
They made this decision after interviewing the student, who had been pulled from class over a violent drawing he had made on a math worksheet. It included a gun, a human body bleeding and the words, “The thoughts won’t stop. Help me.”
The school officials summoned the parents and their son to the school office, but never asked the parents if their son had access to a gun, nor did they search the student’s backpack. Instead, they sent him back to class and provided his parents pamphlets about mental health issues and experts they could contact.
The parents said they would get their son help within 48 hours and returned to their jobs. The shooter went back to class. Two hours later, he fired his first shot.
Judges presses prosecution to explain why proffer agreements were withheld
“We know that without the proffer agreements, Hopkins and Ejak would not have testified,” said Sharon, noting the two school officials also refused to cooperate with a private investigation into the shooting that concluded mistakes were made by many and that the shooting was preventable.
Judge Matthews pressed the prosecution to explain why it did not turn over the proffer agreements, telling assistant Oakland County prosecutor Marc Keast “you’re aware” that the prosecution is required to turn over favorable evidence to the defendant.
In this case, the judge noted, Crumbley was deprived of information that could have challenged the credibility of the school witnesses.
“Wasn’t the defense deprived of a robust cross examination?” Matthews asked the prosecutor.
Keast replied no, arguing it was James Crumbley’s own actions and inactions that led to the deaths of four students — not the testimony of two school witnesses.
Prosecutor: James Crumbley has only himself to blame for his fate
“Evidence showed that it was approximately 1:10 p.m. … when the active shooter alert went out,” Keast said noting that while other parents rushed to the school to check on the safety of their children, James Crumbley did not. “He went home to look for the gun that he had bought for his son just four days before … … He went because he knew his son was the shooter .”
Keast also argued: “James Crumbley is the person who bought the murder weapon and didn’t lock it up”
Crumbley also was the person who knew his son’s best friend had moved away, Keast continued, before raising the alarming drawing. He lambasted Crumbley over what he did after he saw that drawing on a math homework sheet.
“It was James Crumbley who wrote to his his wife, ‘My God, WTF,’ when he was shown that math sheet,” Keast argued in court.
Judge asks prosecutor why proffer agreements were withheld: ‘You’re not telling me it was a boo boo, right?’
Judge Matthews also asked Keast whether the prosecution’s withholding of the agreements was “willful.”
“You’re not telling me it was a boo boo, right? It was intentional … there was a wilfull non-disclosure.”
“No,” Keast responded.
“You decided you didn’t think you had to turn it over, right?” the judge continued.
Keast conceded that the proffer agreements were not disclosed, but stressed the following:
“It does not mean that these proffer agreements were shoved into the back corner of the office … it wasn’t turned over, that’s a fact,” Keast said. “But it would be an error to ascribe ill intent to that.”
“The prosecutor’s intentions throughout this case … were just,” Keast said, stressing again that the proffer agreements “were not immunity agreements.”
“We met with these witnesses multiple times. the proffer agreements never came up again,” Keast argued, adding that the school officials’ attorneys “didn’t even show up” for subsequent interviews.
Keast also maintained that the prosecution would have won the case, even without Ejak and Hopkins.
“It would be a small hole in the trial if they weren’t here. we could have convicted them without the school officials,” Keast said.
Defense implores judge to ‘send a message’
Sharon, however, disagreed, arguing it was the school witnesses, more than anyone else, who — as she views it — painted a false portrayal of the Crumbleys as being uncaring parents who knew their son was in trouble, but did nothing to help.
Moreover, she argued, the prosecution knew it had a duty to disclose the proffer agreements, but chose not to because, she maintains, it knew that would hurt its case.
“That’s terrifying. It’s terrifying that a prosecution team with 85 years of experience doesn’t (disclose that),” said Sharon, who scoffed at claims that the defense was having a “knee jerk” reaction to the proffer agreements.
“My reaction is not a knee jerk reaction. It’s born out of the Constitution’s due process rights … If our Constitution wants to be called a knee jerk reaction, so be it,” Sharon said. “I’ll knee-jerk react to that all day, your honor.”
Sharon then implored the judge to grant Crumbley a new trial, or vacate his conviction.
“This case, your honor, is gut wrenching. It is heartbreaking and it is traumatic for an entire community, but our rules, and the court’s obligation to ensure due process and a fair trial … cannot bend to emotion,” Sharon argued. “The parties must adhere to the rules and you must enforce them equally to sympathetic defendants and to defendants who garner the most visceral of reactions.”
She continued: “”This is a criminal case. This is a man’s liberty, it is his freedom … if you do not grant a new trial, you send a message to Karen Mcdonald and to her office that you will – and that the courts will – tolerate this type of misconduct.”
Perhaps even more alarming, Sharon continued, is a message will be sent to prosecutors throughout the state that failing to disclose favorable evidence to defendants will go unpunished.
“The only remedy that can make him whole is a new trial your honor,” Sharon concluded.
Keast adamantly disagreed, arguing the case was won fair and square, and that the conviction should stick.
“James Crumbley was convicted because of the choices that he made, the choices that led directly to the deaths of Hana, Tate, Justin and Madisyn” Keast said. “The evidence in this case was overwhelming. Follow the law, judge.”
Contact John Wisely: jwisely@freepress.com. On X: @jwisely
Contact Tresa Baldas:tbaldas@freepress.com
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: James Crumbley drags school-shooter son into his fight for new trial
Read the full article here
