OAKLAND COUNTY, Mich. – Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of the Oxford High School shooter, appeared in court Friday for a hearing regarding the use of the proffer agreements as she seeks a new trial.
Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews listened to arguments from the defense and the prosecution on the issue of alleged discovery violations with the agreements that were made between the prosecutor’s office and two school employees.
“With regard to the defendant’s motion for bond appending appeal, a ruling on this motion is obviously impactful, therefore I will rule on the motion for bond pending appeal contemporaneous with a written opinion, on the motion for acquittal and/or a new trial.”
As we await Matthews' decision, here’s what we heard in court today:
Even though Matthews ruled on Thursday, Jan. 30, that the topic of the public relations firms couldn’t be argued in court Friday, she did say she was interested in hearing arguments about the proffer agreements and said the court was “likely in agreement” with Dezsi about discovery violations.
Crumbley’s attorney Michael Dezsi claimed the proffer agreements were made for “use immunities” so that Ejak and Hopkins would be protected despite what testimony they give in court.
He had the agreements put up on the screen and the purpose stated in the documents was read aloud:
“A) To receive truthful information from your client, including information about possible criminal activity by your client and others, and B) to evaluate your client’s credibility as a source of information and potential witness. In return, this office will consider your client’s proffer statements in deciding how to resolve this investigation as it relates to your client and any charges pending against your client being prosecuted by this office.”
He said due to the agreements, the school officials could say what they wanted, knowing it couldn’t be used against them, according to the proffer agreements, although the prosecution says they didn’t give the school employees immunity.
Dezsi said the prosecution couldn’t have brought Ejak and Hopkins into court if they were going to assert the fifth and without them, there wouldn’t have been testimony about what was said during the meeting with the two school officials hours before the shooting occurred.
“There would have been a hole in the testimony,” said Matthews, but she also said other evidence surrounding the meeting would have been presented.
While Matthews said there is other evidence against Crumbley and disagreed that the testimony from Ejak and Hopkins was key evidence in the trials, Dezsi said he doesn’t believe Crumbley would’ve been convicted without their testimonies, because of the “subjective descriptions” the two officials gave about the meeting. He referred to the language they used about what they thought she was going to do, or how they thought she rushed out of the meeting.
The issue here is the fact that these proffer agreements weren’t provided to the defense before the trials.
Matthews asked Dezsi, assuming she agrees the rules of discovery were violated in this case, what would the remedy be?
Dezsi said he is seeking an acquittal.
“Do you really think I’m going to do that,” Matthews said.
“No,” Dezsi responds. “But I want you to because I think you should…because the violation of the discovery rule in this case was intentional. This wasn’t an oversight.”
Dezsi said he isn’t challenging the character of the prosecutor, but saying this was an inadvertent oversight.
Oakland Country Assistant Prosecutor Marc Keast said there was not a discovery violation and that the two school officials were subpoenaed to court.
“So, why didn’t the prosecution provide that information,” Matthews asked regarding the proffer agreements. “Maybe we wouldn’t be here.”
Keast said there wasn’t use immunity, saying that there was no agreement made for testimony, but Matthews said there was an agreement not to use what they said in the case of being charged.
He said the mother wasn’t convicted based on anything Ejak or Hopkins did, and Matthews reiterated the concern of the discovery violation, and he claimed, again, there was no immunity.
Keast listed facts of the case, like the shooter’s friend moving away, the shooter’s proficiency with the gun, the disturbing photos her son drew, and the list of mental health resources she was given but didn’t use as important evidence and said, “Their subjective thoughts and views of that meeting have zero bearing on this case judge.”
Attorneys for the two school officials had reached out to the prosecution and asked for a meeting to be in a proffer setting, according to Keast.
Although police interviewed Ejak and Hopkins initially on Nov. 30, 2021, and generated a police report, Keast said police were not there when the proffer happened. It was just the prosecutor’s office who interviewed them.
While discussing the proffer agreements, Matthews brought up credibility and Keast said the credibility of Ejak or Hopkins didn’t matter, because of all of the other evidence.
“There is a disconnect,” Matthews said. “Isn’t the prosecutor under a duty to disclose any information that would affect the credibility of the witness?”
Keast said the proffer agreements don’t meet that definition, and that he doesn’t agree with that.
After the prosecution made arguments, Dezsi again said the prosecution called the school officials to use the subjective descriptions that they could then use as the basis for gross negligence. He also said the prosecution doesn’t understand what immunity use is in the agreement.
Keast then reiterated that the school officials' perception is meaningless, because the objective, uncontested evidence is why there is confidence in the verdict.
After hearing the arguments Matthews said she’d give a written motion in response on this matter at a later date.
Background
On Thursday, Dec. 26, 2024, Crumbley requested that she be released from prison as it would be “grossly unfair and unjust” to keep her behind bars during the appeals process.
Her attorney, Michael Dezsi, argued that Crumbley should have never been tried in the first place.
“Mrs. Crumbley has committed no crime, has never harmed anyone, and is certainly not a flight risk, so there is no reason to deny her right to freedom while an overreaching prosecution attempts to pin the failings of a nation on the [backs of parents],” said Dezsi.
Following the request, David Williams, chief assistant prosecutor, said Crumbley was tried for her actions and inactions leading to the Oxford High School shooting.
“The legal issues raised by Jennifer Crumbley have already been heard and rejected by the Michigan Court of Appeals,” Williams said in a statement. “She should remain in prison serving her sentence while this matter proceeds through the appellate courts.”
On Jan. 3, 2025, the prosecutor’s office filed a response to Crumbley’s requests for a new trial and to be released from prison during her appeal.
In the response, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald said, “The mother received a fair trial in front of a jury of her peers, and her motion for a new trial should be denied.”
When addressing the bond request, McDonald said, “This is at least the seventh time bond has been addressed during these proceedings. The only difference now is that the presumption of innocence no longer applies -- the defendant has been convicted by a jury of her peers for causing the deaths of Hana St. Juliana, Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, and Justin Shilling. Like each of the defendant’s previous requests relating to bond, this motion should be denied.”
Since requesting to be released from prison, Dezsi also accused the prosecution of paying public relations firms to engage in a “smear campaign” against the Crumbley parents.
On Thursday, Jan. 30, Matthews ruled that the information about the public relations firms couldn’t be argued in court on Friday, Jan. 31, but she would hear arguments about the proffer agreements.
Jennifer and James Crumbley were the first parents in the U.S. to be convicted in a mass school shooting carried out by their child.
After separate trials were held, they were sentenced to 10-15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter in connection to the shooting at Oxford High School on Nov. 30, 2021, which left four students dead and seven people injured.
Their son, now 18, was 15 at the time of the shooting.
In December 2022, the shooter pleaded guilty to all 24 charges and was sentenced to life in prison without parole in December 2023.
Late last year, in December 2024, a judge refused to allow the school shooter to withdraw his guilty plea.
