Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews has hit Jennifer Crumbley's appellate attorney, Michael Dezsi, with a fine of $1,657 for what she deemed an improper motion to remove Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald from her case, according to ClickOnDetroit. Matthews, ruling the motion as frivolous and beyond her jurisdiction, imposed the fine to recoup the costs Dezsi was reimbursed for filing it. Dezsi, whose payment deadline is July 14, has announced his appeal against this sanction to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
In their reports, the Detroit Free Press echoed Dezsi's resolve. "I will not be bullied or intimidated into being silent about the prosecutor’s misconduct or how Jennifer Crumbley was denied a fair trial," Dezsi stated, emphasizing his commitment to his oath as an attorney. Dezsi had accused the prosecutor's office of employing unethical tactics, including undisclosed proffer agreements with key witnesses and engaging public relations firms for what he called a "smear campaign" against his client.
Jennifer Crumbley and her husband, James Crumbley, were both found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a conviction tied to their son Ethan Crumbley's actions during the Oxford High School shooting on Nov. 30, 2021. This tragic event claimed the lives of four students and injured several others. The Crumbleys' case marked the first instance of parents being held criminally responsible for a mass school shooting carried out by their child in the United States, as reported by The Detroit News. Both parents received sentences of 10-15 years in prison and have filed motions for new trials.
Meanwhile, Judge Matthews continues to consider whether the undisclosed agreements between the prosecution and two school employees, who met with the shooter on the day of the massacre, call for a retrial or dismissal of Jennifer Crumbley's case. As her evaluation persists, Matthews has expressed concerns over the potential discovery violation that these proffer agreements, which were revealed after the trials, could represent. In the ongoing proceedings, the prosecution has maintained they fulfilled their obligations legally, devoid of the need to disclose these agreements, as no immunity was implicitly granted to any witnesses. This stance has been a central point of contention between Dezsi and the prosecutor's office, as highlighted by ClickOnDetroit.
