Jennifer Crumbley’s Appel: Judge to decide on Oxford High School Shooter’s Mother should get a new trial

A Judge of Oakland County will investigate evidence presented by lawyers before deciding whether Jennifer Crumbley, Oxford High School Shooter’s mother, should get a new trial.

Jennifer and her husband, James Crumbley, were both convicted by juries for four counts of involuntary killings and sentenced to 10-15 years of prison for their role in the school shooting 30 November 2021. The charges were brought against the couple after their then 15-year-old Son brought a gun to school and killed four people.

Jennifer Crumbley for the Court

What they say:

Jennifer’s lawyer, Michael Dezi, claims that the prosecution committed a violation by not revealing a professional deal between the prosecution and two central witnesses in the case. According to Dezsi, he believes that the pros gave immunity to school staff Nick Ejak and Shawn Hopkins, despite the prosecution saying they did not.

Ejak and Hopkins met with Crumbleys a few hours before the school shooting on November 30, 3021, after their son pulled disturbing pictures on a spreadsheet. They testified about this meeting.

Dezsi said that the testimony, which he argued, was largely subjective, helped to judge his client.

Jennifer Crumbley for Court on January 31, 2025

“This is Mr. Ejak, who testifies that he had an expectation that they would leave from the meeting with their son. He said, ‘It seems a little weird based on my experiences,'” Dezsi said. “So they tried to put a predicate that would satisfy the gross negligence standard that did not come from anywhere else in the trial because this meeting is where the prosecutors say that Mrs. Crumbley should have done something or taken her son.”

Judge Cheryl Matthews pushed back on this claim and said Jennifer confirmed what happened at this meeting during her own testimony.

“There is no evidence that contradicts what they said and your client’s testimony matches what they said,” Matthews said.

Dezsi also expressed concern that the prosecution did not share that Ejak and Hopkins would not be charged until after the crumbs were convicted.

“When you have a problem situation like this, these witnesses will do what they are going to do. They will say, ‘oh I think they want me to be a little more helpful I think they want Me to establish this fact a little better, ‘Dezsi said.

The other side:

Prosecutor Marc Keast claimed that Ejak and Hopkins were not offered anything in exchange for their testimony.

“There was no immunity,” he said. “Nothing was offered for testimony.”

The prosecutor said his office spoke with Ejak and Hopkins after the shooting, but did not intend to call Ejak to the booth. The decision to sue him to testify was only made after Jennifer’s lawyer during the trial, Shannon Smith, expressed that she would call him the booth, Keast argued.

Keast also said that Jennifer was sentenced on the basis of evidence of her actions – not what Ejak or Hopkins said.

“Jennifer Crumbley was convicted on the basis of her level of gross negligence because she was the cause of these four deaths and because what her son did was reasonably predictable to her. No one else. Her,” he said. “Their subjective thoughts and views of this meeting have zero meaning to this matter.”

Although Dezsi said the testimony of the school staff was the key to getting a jury to judge Jennifer, Keast claimed it was not.

“Our prosecution is never related to anything perceived or real responsibility on behalf of Shawn Hopkins or Nick Ejak,” he said. “Should they be sued or successfully prosecuted one or”

What is the next one:

Matthews will review what was presented to her Friday and issue a rewritten response.

Jennifer Crumbley will have out of prison

Back story:

Last month, Dezsi filed an appeal to her verdict and said her trial was “filled with errors.” Questions raised in the appeal included the prosecution that did not reveal agreements with central witnesses to jurist, advertising about the case, and Jennifer was convicted of not controlling her minor son, despite being sentenced as an adult.

However, on Thursday, Matthews refused most of the movements filed by Dezsi. On Friday, she only heard arguments about the profitable agreements.

While the appeal is pending, Dezsi says Jennifer should be allowed to send bond and be released from prison because she “has not committed any crime, has never hurt anyone and is certainly not a risk of flight.”

He continued to call the prosecutors “overreaching” and said the case was the result of “attempts to determine a nations’ failure on the back of a parent.”

According to Dezsi, criminal judgment guidelines recommended a verdict as short as 43 months, but Jennifer received more than a decade behind columns.

“Having Mrs. Crumbley locked at the Michigan Department of Corrections’ Women’s Huron Valley Facility not only throws a dark shadow over the justice system, but rewards the prosecution of a made crime that puts a very dangerous precedent,” Dezsi said in a press release.

Dezsi claimed that evidence was detained from the trial, including information that two important witnesses working at the school entered into cooperation agreements to testify against Jennifer. According to Dezski, these agreements were not published.

According to the appeal’s filing, the agreements should have been shared with the jury because Ejak and Hopkins interacted with the shooter the day of the crime and had the chance to search the backpack before the shooting, but did not.

“These findings simply demonstrate why Hopkins and Ejak were initially given the opportunity to present agreements because they had obvious criminal exposure,” Dezsi wrote. “To the extent that these witnesses testified to shifting guilt away from themselves and to the parents, the jury should have been made aware of these proffer agreements so that they more precisely and fully evaluated their credibility.”

Jennifer’s defense believes that knowledge of the agreements would have helped with cross -examination of Ejak and Hopkins. However, the prosecution denies that the couple was offered something to testify.

In court, Dezsi filed that the prosecution claimed that Jennifer was not controlling his minor child. However, he noted that her child was convicted and sentenced as an adult.

“These theories are both actually inconsistent and mutually exclusive amounts to a violation of Mrs. Crumble’s proper process rights under both federal and state law,” he wrote.

Dezsi also argued that the jury was told that they could judge Jennifer, even if their judgment was not unanimous.

The other side:

After the appeal was filed, the prosecutor’s office in Oakland County responded to the appeal and said partly that “James and Jennifer Crumbley is the rare, grossly negligent exception, and 24 jurry leader unanimously agreed that they are responsible for Hana’s death, Madisyn, Madisyn, Tate and Justin.

The source: Information in this story is from previous FOX 2 reporting and court registers.

Oxford High School ShootingCrime and Public Security