Jurors begin deliberations in James Crumbley involuntary manslaughter trial: Replay

The involuntary manslaughter trial of James Crumbley moved quickly Wednesday, with prosecutors completing their case and the defense presenting only one witness before closing arguments.

Jurors began deliberating shortly before 3:30 p.m.

Crumbley and his wife, Jennifer, whose teenage son murdered four students and injured seven other people at Oxford High School on Nov. 30, 2021, are the first parents in America to face criminal accountability for a child's school shooting.

Those killed were Tate Myre, 16; Hana St. Juliana, 14; Madisyn Baldwin, 17, and Justin Shilling, 17.

Jennifer Crumbley, was convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter last month and faces up to 15 years in prison when she's sentenced April 9. Ethan Crumbley, their son, is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Watch live and read updates through the day here.

The last word to jurors

Because the prosecution has the burden of proof, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald got the last say with the jury, a time she spent blasting James Crumbley in an emotional and impassioned speech that focused on "tragically small things" that she believes could have saved four lives.

James Crumbley could have put a lock on the gun, she said, or stopped at his house and checked for the gun after seeing a disturbing drawing that prompted school officials to call the parents for a meeting on the morning of the shooting.

Perhaps most alarming, she told the jury, was the father going back to work instead of taking his son home from school after seeing the daunting words on the drawing: "The thoughts won't stop. Help me."

"Use common sense," she said. ""It doesn't make any sense to stand here and say someone had no idea that he needed help when he saw on a page, 'Help me.' "

McDonald then acted out a scene in the courtroom, showing jurors how easy it is to put a cable lock on a gun.

"This is the murder weapon," she said, pointing at the 9 mm in the courtroom. "This is a cable lock ... we know a cable lock was in the home. We know it was provided."

McDonald then installed the lock.

"This is me inserting a cable lock. That takes less than 10 seconds, 10 seconds ... It was right there. Ten seconds of the easiest simplest thing."

She also argued that James Crumbley failed to adequately secure the gun, saying it's not difficult to conclude that a 15-year-old who spends a lot of time home alone could not find the weapon.

"It wasn't hidden," she said. "We know that James Crumbley went home and looked for a gun when he heard there was an active shooter ... that's foreseeability ... and that's what I had to prove."

"This case is not a statement about guns. It's not about parental responsibility," she said, adding: "We are not responsible for everything our kids do. This case is not inconsistent with that, it just isn't. This is a very egregious and rare, rare set of facts."

And they involve a parent, she stressed, who was grossly negligent and robbed four young students of a future as a result.

"James Crumbley failed. He didn't just fail in his duty to his son, he failed in his duty to protect Hana and Justin and Madison and Tate. I don't say their names to evoke sympathy. I say their names because they matter. They matter," she said, her voice growing louder." And that is why we are here. Because if James Crumbley had done even the smallest of things ... those kids wouldn't have been shot and killed in that school that day."

Defense reminds jurors of what they didn't hear

Defense attorney Mariell Lehman began her closing argument by acknowledging the horrors that occurred on Nov. 30, 2021. Lives were ruined, she noted, but urged the jury to set aside the emotions of the tragedy and to look at only the evidence presented in this case.

"We can agree that you heard a lot about what happened inside Oxford High School. This case is not about what happened inside Oxford High School. This case is about what happened outside Oxford High School ... about what James Crumbley knew on or before Nov. 30, 2021."

She stressed, repeatedly, that this case is about hindsight.

"The prosecution is asking you to second guess the decisions (of James Crumbley)," she said, adding, that as school counselor "Shawn Hopkins told you, 'it's easy to look at things in hindsight.'"

"You saw no evidence that James Crumley had any knowledge that his son was a danger to anyone ... that his son was planning a shooting, that his son knew where the gun was hidden and that he had handled guns unsupervised."

"Still, they want you to find that James could have foreseen this," she said.

"If James knew what was in that journal, the prosecution would have told you that, if James knew that his son had access to the gun, the prosecution would have shown you that. You would have seen that.

"But you didn't, because James didn't know that his son knew where those firearms are," she said, stressing that's reasonable doubt.

Charges based on 'assumptions and hindsight'

She also noted that a federal agent testified that guns can be stored in a variety of ways — "that came from ATF agent." If had known his son was accessing guns without his permission, prosecutors would have presented that information. "But you didn't see that because it isn't true, James didn't know. This can be your reasonable doubt," Lehman said.

Lehman also touched on the problem of gun violence in America, telling jurors that amid the nation's epidemic of gun deaths and mass killings, school shootings in particular, have devastated communities. She said neither she nor her client dispute the horror and impact of the Oxford school shooting.

But the charges and allegations against James Crumbley, she stressed, were based on “assumptions and hindsight.”

“Still, the prosecution wants you to find that James could foresee that his son was a danger to others and that James acted in a grossly negligent manner or breached a duty that he owed to other people, despite having no information at the time,” Lehman said.

Lehman also zeroed in on the father's actions after he met with school officials about his son's troubling drawing, and went back to his DoorDash job. She referenced testimony that Crumbley drove past his house four times while DoorDashing, but never stopped once to check for a missing gun after having seen his son's disturbing note.

"Why would he? He didn't know. He didn't know what his son was planning. He didn't know his son had access to the guns. So why would he go home? He had no reason to," Lehman argued.

Lehman also asked the jury to consider James Crumbley's comments to police about his son, telling officers that there weren't any issues with his son, that he was a "perfect" kid.

"Even if you have a question" about the dad's opinion of his son, she said to the jury, consider the testimony of Assistant Principal Kristy Gibson-Marshall, who encountered the shooter during his rampage.

"The shooter gets closer and she realizes that it's James' son. And her first thought is, 'it can't be right.' With a gun in his hand ... she didn't think that that was right. Even in those moments," Lehman said, noting the assistant principal also called the boy "a sweet kid."

'Please follow the law'

Lehman also urged the jury to consider James Crumbley's cooperation with police after the shooting, when he told them where the gun was originally located, shared details about his son's life and expressed regret.

"In that interview, you heard James say, 'I wish we would have taken him home,'" Lehman said.

Lehman also sought to dispel the narrative that the gun belonged to the shooter.

"If it really was his gun, why was it hidden in James' bedroom?" Lehman asked jurors. "Not only in the bedroom, but in a location that James's son was not aware of."

She then turned her focus to the shooter's journal.

In it, she stressed, the teenager wrote: "I don't know where my dad hid it."

That, she argued, shows the dad did not provide easy access to the gun.

Moreover, she argued:

"There's no evidence that James Crumbley had any reason to believe that his son would ever hurt anybody," Lehman said, stressing the assistant principal felt this way, too.

She again asked the jury to consider that as the shooter got closer to the assistant principal, she thought, "This can't be right ... she even tried to talk to him, because she just can't believe that James' son was the shooter. And when he wouldn't respond, she realized, it must be him."

Lehman told the jurors they heard from a dozen witnesses, stressing: “None of them told you that James knew what his son was planning.”

"As you deliberate, think about the things you did not hear,” she said, telling jurors that the prosecution did not follow through on some claims it made early on, including that jurors “would hear how the shooter gained access to that gun. You didn’t hear that.”

As for the parents’ decisions to go back to their jobs after seeing the drawing, Lehman reminded the jury about the counselor’s testimony, that he wanted the parents to make arrangements within 48 hours.

“Nobody testified that immediate intervention was necessary … no one testified that there was a need for immediate intervention of any kind,” she said, adding: “You did not hear testimony detailing how the shooter obtained access, you just saw in his journal that he had access, but you don’t know how that happened.

“He did not know what his son was planning … he had taught his son firearms safety … he had no idea what his son was planning to do.”

Moreover, she stressed, no one who interacted with the shooter in the days and hours before the shooting foresaw what he would do.

She urged jurors to follow the law.

"Please, follow the law, review the evidence, because I’m confident if you do that, each of you will have at least one reasonable doubt, and your vote should be not guilty … because James Crumbley is not guilty.

Prosecutor: Crumbley 'had a disregard for a known danger'

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald began her opening statement by referring to the testimony of two police officials who were among the first responders on the scene.

How one said this was the largest law enforcement response to a crime he had ever seen, and that the only thing he knew for sure that day was that "it was real." And how he said he will "never forget" the faces of parents anxiously searching for their children at the reunification scene."

She also asked them to consider the testimony of teacher Molly Darnell, who was shot in the rampage and texted her husband that she loved him, and Assistant Principal Kristy Marshall-Gibson, who ventured toward the sound of gunshots that day and encountered the gunman during his rampage, but stayed in the hallway to help a dying child on the ground.

"Even when she saw James Crumbley's son with that gun, she still couldn't believe it," McDonald said of the assistant principal's shock at the horror she witnessed.

Four children died that day, she told the jury, because James Crumbley "did nothing."

"He did nothing," she said repeatedly.

"What happened that day is about the deaths of those four children, and what James Crumbley did and did not do ... James Crumbley is not on trial for what his son did. He's on trial for what he did and didn't do."

She continued:

"James Crumbley had a disregard for a known danger," she said, later adding: "James Crumbley doesn't get a pass because someone else caused the deaths of these four kids."

McDonald argues that father contradicted himself

McDonald also asked the jury to consider James Crumbley's statements in the police substation after the shooting, how he told investigators that his son had only one friend, was a good kid and hadn't been in trouble before.

"He referred to the math sheet as some doodling on the paper," and this was after the shooting, she stressed, referring to the violent drawing a teacher found on the morning of the shooting of a gun, a human being bleeding, and the words, 'The thoughts won't stop, help me."

The father referred to this as doodling, even after the shooting, McDonald argued, noting James Crumbley also texted his wife "WTF" after first seeing that drawing.

She then asked the jury to remember what James Crumbley told officers about the gun, that he had hidden it in an armoire in a case, and that the bullets were stored in a separate drawer under some jeans.

But then she asked the jury to focus on what James Crumbley didn't say — how he made no mention of any lock on the gun, no mention that the school wanted the parents to get his son help that day.

Perhaps most noteworthy, she argued: "He never says, ''I don't know how he got it ... I have no idea how he got a hold of this gun."

She continued:

"Four kids just died. Your kid's in custody, and not once did he say, 'How did he get the gun?' He didn't say it because he knew. He knew he had access to the gun."

When the parents met with school officials

She then scoffed at the defense's anticipated argument that the Crumbleys were acting on the advice of school professionals, who testified they did not see the shooter as a threat to himself or others that day, and let him return to class.

"He doesn't get a pass because he doesn't think the teachers did enough," she said, arguing that Crumbley is trying to dodge any liability for his role in the deaths of four children.

McDonald touched on the meeting between the parents and two school officials over the troubling drawing, when the parents said they had to return to their jobs and vowed to get their son help within 48 hours.

The counselor and dean of students did not request or order the parents to remove their son that day, but concluded he was only sad and not a threat to himself or others.

McDonald told jurors they may not like what the two school officials did that day, but she said her job is to present all of the evidence, which, she argued, shows James Crumbley was grossly negligent and is trying to shift the blame.

“And the blame-shifting is only meant to send a message: ‘I’m not accountable here at all, even though I bought the weapon, even though I didn’t secure it, even though I never got help for my son, even though I could have taken him that day.’”

McDonald told jurors it is her office’s job to present them with the facts, tell the truth and be advocates. Sometimes, she said, that involves showing them things no one wants to see, producing evidence, testimony and images that they don’t want to have to show them.

“It’s not our job to sanitize, even though that would be easier,” she said.

McDonald said James Crumbley was presented with the “easiest, most glaring opportunities” to prevent the four students’ deaths. “And he did nothing.”

"Tragically small efforts” could have saved the students' lives, she said.

Eight father-son trips to the shooting range

McDonald also asked the jury to consider the other two guns in the Crumbley home, including a gun the shooter once held in his hand, texting a friend: "My dad left it out, so I thought, why not."

"This is precisely why there is a legal duty in the state of Michigan to prevent your kid from harming himself or somebody else," she said.

She then quoted from the shooter's journal, citing one excerpt in which the boy writes how he's "begging"'" his dad for a Sig Sauer 9 mm gun.

Then she cited this excerpt: "First off, I got my gun. It's a Sig Sauer ... The shooting is tomorrow. I have access to the gun and ammo."

She then told jurors James Crumbley took his son to the shooting range eight times in the year before the shooting, and that it was the dad who taught his son how to shoot.

McDonald said 32 shots were fired in the school that day. How do we know this was foreseeable? she asked.

The shooter says in his journal:

• "I have zero help for my mental problems, and it's causing me to shoot up the f----- school."

• "I want help, but my parents won't listen to me, so I can't get any help."

• "My parents won't listen to me about help or a therapist."

She also repeated a text the shooter sent to his friend in which he alleged that he told his dad he was sick, and that his dad gave him pills and told him to "Suck it up."

McDonald argued that these texts "just make him look desperate and sad, and wanting help."

McDonald became visibly incensed as she focused the jury's attention on perhaps the most damning piece of evidence in the case: The troubling drawing the shooter made on the morning before the shooting.

"It says, 'Help me,' How many times does he have to say it?" McDonald argued, her voice getting louder, noting the boy wrote "help me" in his journal, in his texts and on a piece of paper.

And when the dad sees this, she argued, "What does he say? 'We got to go to work.'"

McDonald's last words to the jury were this: "He didn't just fail his son. He failed Hana, he failed Madisyn, he failed Tate, and he failed Justin ... and he failed their parents, too.

"I ask that you find him guilty."

James Crumbley affirms his choice not to testify

After the defense rested its case and the jury left the courtroom, Crumbley took an oath before the judge, acknowledging that he understood the risks and potential benefits of testifying in his case, that he discussed it extensively with his lawyer beforehand and that he understood from the beginning that he had a constitutional right no testify in his case.

Knowing all that, he told the judge: “It is my decision to remain silent.”

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Matthews then asked him if he had any questions of her.

“No. I don’t believe so. Thank you, your honor.”

The jury will return at 12:30 for closing arguments.

James Crumbley's sister from Florida is first defense witness

The prosecution rested in its case after briefly recalling Brett Brandon, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives. Brandon testified that he reviewed the surveillance footage from the building in Detroit where James and Jennifer Crumbley were arrested in 2021 and that he saw them walk out to their vehicle, but did not observe them leaving the location.

Defense attorney Lehman called James Crumbley’s sister, Karen Crumbley, to testify as the only defense witness.

Karen Crumbley, who lives in Florida, testified that her brother visited her in April 2021 when their mother died. She said her brother’s wife and son drove to Florida shortly afterward.

“Do you recall seeing anything concerning about your nephew?” Lehman asked.

“No,” Karen Crumbley said.

“Do you recall him saying anything concerning to you?” Lehman asked.

Karen Crumbley said no. Under questioning, she also said she did not recall any conversations with her brother where he expressed anything concerning to her about his son or shared any conversations he had with his son that were concerning to her.

She testified that if she had seen anything concerning with her nephew, she “would have addressed it and if I would have known anything I would have talked to him. … I would have took him home with me if there was any kind of inclination that anything was wrong,” and she said she also would have made her brother aware of if she had any concerns.

Under questioning by the prosecution, Karen Crumbley testified that the last time she saw her nephew before the shooting was in June 2021.

Assistant Prosecutor Marc Keast asked: “Your nephew never wrote you a note that said, ‘Help me’ did he?”

“No, sir,” Karen Crumbley testified.

“And he never drew a picture next to that note with a gun, did he?” Keast asked. She said no.

“And that would be concerning to you?” Keast asked. She said it would be.

Karen Crumbley was asked about a previous statement she made that it wouldn’t have been out of the ordinary for someone to own firearms back when everyone lived in Florida, but that getting a gun for a child would be. Wednesday she testified: “If you’re getting a gun specifically for your child to use at his leisure that would be wrong, but with adult supervision, I don’t see any problem with it.”

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Replay: James Crumbley involuntary manslaughter trial nears end