OAKLAND COUNTY, Mich. – The father of the Oxford High School shooter filed a motion asking for a new trial, and now prosecutors filed a motion in response, giving reasons why the request should be denied.
James Crumbley requested a new trial at the end of February, arguing that the court failed to determine whether the shooter asserted his Fifth Amendment right correctly, citing his trial attorney’s lack of an objection, and pointing to the proffer agreements that were made with two key witnesses.
Now, prosecutors have filed a motion in response arguing that Crumbley’s request should be denied because he already received a fair trial and his claims are “without merit.”
Crumbley was convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter in March 2024 in connection with his son’s actions in the Oxford High School Shooting on Nov. 30, 2021, which left four students -- 14-year-old Hana St. Juliana; 16-year-old Tate Myre; 17-year-old Madisyn Baldwin; and 17-year-old Justin Shilling -- dead and seven others injured.
You can watch video from his conviction at the top of this page.
James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison, marking the first time in the U.S. that parents have been convicted in connection with a mass shooting committed by their child.
“The jury determined that defendant was grossly negligent and that his gross negligence was a cause of the four deaths in the Oxford High School shooting, said Assistant Prosecutor Joseph Shada in a motion filed on April 4, 2025. ”He received a fair trial, and none of defendant’s arguments are sufficient to undermine the unanimous jury verdict. Defendant’s motion should be denied."
When requesting a new trial, Crumbley’s appellate attorney, Alona Sharon, claimed that discovery violations were made because prosecutors suppressed proffer agreements they made with Nick Ejak, the former dean of students at Oxford High School, and Shawn Hopkins, a former high school counselor.
The agreements didn’t grant the school employees immunity from criminal charges, but under them, any statements made in this case wouldn’t be used in any potential criminal prosecution of them.
Shada said the agreements allowed the prosecution to meet with Ejak and Hopkins to evaluate them as possible witnesses, with the promise that they would give truthful information. Both men knew about the potential criminal liability, and the proffer agreements were created after a request from their attorneys. These kinds of agreements also don’t require testimony.
The assistant prosecutor also addressed whether the shooter asserted his Fifth Amendment right properly.
Shada claims that Crumbley’s trial attorney, Mariell Lehman, could have filed a motion to address the shooter’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment right, which kept him from testifying during James and Jennifer Crumbley’s trials, but did not.
“Defendant’s trial counsel, Ms. Lehman, did not file such a motion seeking to compel the shooter to testify in defendant’s case– nor did she otherwise challenge his claim of Fifth Amendment privilege," Shada said.
So, while Crumbley’s filing claims the Court neglected to follow procedures regarding this, Shada said it was the defendant who failed to pursue the issue.
However, the prosecutor said this doesn’t mean that his trial attorney was ineffective, as Crumbley claims. Shada said that his “trial defense counsel was well aware of the fact that defendant’s son was invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege and that the applicable authority indicated he had a valid claim of privilege; thus, defense counsel knew she could not call him to the stand.”
This comes as his wife, Jennifer Crumbley, also seeks a new trial. As part of this bid for a new trial, the mother asked for Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald to be removed from her case, but that motion was recently denied.
Matthews previously ruled that the topic of the public relations firms that were hired by the prosecutor’s office couldn’t be discussed in court, but had agreed to hear arguments for a new trial based on the alleged discovery violations with the proffer agreements that were made.
After the hearing, the judge said she’d give a written motion in response to this matter at a later date.
