James Crumbley, the father of the Oxford High School shooter, has requested a new trial, claiming that important information, including proffer agreements with school officials, was not shared with his defense. However, Oakland County prosecutors have rejected his request, stating that his claims have no legal basis.
According to CBS News Detroit, Crumbley's attorney, Alona Sharon, claimed that the undisclosed agreements with former Oxford High School Dean of Students Nicholas Ejak and school counselor Shawn Hopkins included offers of immunity, which were not communicated to the defense. Prosecutors, led by Assistant Prosecutor Joseph Shada, refuted these allegations, stating that the agreements simply assured that the witnesses' statements during interviews would not be used against them later.
In a written response obtained by The Detroit News, Shada highlighted the jury's finding that Crumbley's gross negligence directly contributed to the deaths in the shooting. Shada also stated that the proffer agreements were not required to be disclosed, were irrelevant to the defendant's guilt, and did not meet the criteria for exculpatory evidence under the law.
The contentious Fifth Amendment claim was another focal point addressed by the prosecution. Crumbley's trial counsel did not file a motion to compel the shooter to testify, as his wife's counsel had. According to ClickonDetroit, Shada claimed in his filing that, "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."
Both James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison, marking an unprecedented case in U.S. history where parents are held criminally accountable for a mass shooting committed by their child. As Jennifer Crumbley similarly seeks a new trial, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Matthews is yet to rule on the matter of the proffer agreements. She previously stated her concern about the possibility of a discovery violation relating to these agreements.
