Jennifer Crumbley asks for time served; attorney says case was 'no-win situation'

Jennifer Crumbley's criminal prosecution has been a "no-win situation" from the beginning, her attorney wrote in a sentencing memorandum filed Friday.

Prosecutors have continually characterized Crumbley, the mother of Oxford High School shooter Ethan Crumbley, as a “selfish, callous, evil person and horrible mother” who prioritized her own convenience over the safety of Oxford students, attorney Shannon Smith wrote. But that isn't true, she said.

“Mrs. Crumbley was damned no matter what she did or did not do,” Smith wrote. “At trial Mrs. Crumbley’s reactions to the tragic events and learning what her son did were criticized at every turn. The prosecution certainly tried to convey that Mrs. Crumbley did not care enough about what was going on, that she did not cry enough, and that she did not behave the way a mother of a school shooter would behave.”

Earlier this year, separate juries in Oakland County convicted Crumbley and her husband James Crumbley of four counts of involuntary manslaughter for their role in the deaths of four students shot by their son in November 2021: Madisyn Baldwin; Hana St. Juliana; Tate Myre; and Justin Shilling.

Smith asked Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Matthews to give Crumbley credit for time served — just under two and a half years — and for her to be able to serve the rest of her sentence on a tether and house arrest at Smith’s home in Oakland Township, where she could work remotely and begin to rebuild her life. The Crumbleys are set to be sentenced Tuesday.

Prosecutors are asking for Matthews to sentence Crumbley to 10 to 15 years in prison, the maximum sentence allowed by law.

“There is no remedy whatsoever that can make the community, the victims, their families, or even the Crumbleys whole again,” Smith wrote. “Putting Mrs. Crumbley in prison does nothing to further deter others from committing like offenses. There is no person who would want the events of November 30, 2021, to repeat themselves.”

If Matthews finds time served is appropriate and doesn’t order further probation or house arrest with a tether, Crumbley would relocate to Florida to live with parents, Smith wrote.

Smith confirmed that Crumbley would be appealing her convictions based on issues “this court is aware of, and new issues that have arisen since trial.”

She also noted that MDOC proposed continuing the no-contact order with James and their son, which Smith argues violates Crumbley’s constitutional rights. Crumbley has not been allowed to contact either since her and James' arrest in December 2021.

James Crumbley's attorney has not yet filed a sentencing memorandum.

Pre-sentence report, prosecutor comments inaccurate, Smith claims

Smith said the pre-sentence investigation report done by the Michigan Department of Corrections doesn’t accurately describe the facts. She also said the sentencing guidelines can’t take into account the unique circumstances of this case.

It reiterates an incorrect narrative and ignores what came out at trial, Smith wrote, especially where it says Crumbley “repeatedly ignored claims from her son that he was hallucinating, ignored her son’s requests to see a doctor or therapist, supported her husband in his purchase of a firearm for their son, assisted her son in learning how to shoot it by taking him to gun ranges, ignored warnings the school presented to her of her son’s increasingly concerning behavior and was rarely home.”

Smith said prosecutors gave a biased summary of the facts at trial, leaving out evidence favorable to Crumbley to try to vilify her further. She called their narratives “highly inaccurate and misleading.”

“By being able to take absolutely opposite positions, arguing in Mrs. Crumbley’s case that the shooter was hallucinating yet arguing in the shooter’s cases that he did not suffer from hallucinations, the prosecution took advantage of the defense being absolutely hamstrung," Smith said. "While the prosecution can certainly use evidence strategically, it should not be allowed that they can present absolutely opposite information at their convenience in two different hearings. Allowing this to happen is an injustice.”

Smith and James' attorney Mariell Lehman, along with the shooter's attorney Paulette Loftin, have all argued against prosecutors being able to use what they called conflicting narratives in the three cases. Loftin argued in August during the shooter's Miller hearing, where a judge heard evidence to see if he could fairly sentence him to life without parole, that it was disingenuous to argue the shooter didn't have a mental illness.

"We have one set of facts here. You can't stand in two different courtrooms and argue two different things when it's one set of facts," Loftin said.

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald called Loftin’s statements "offensive and unconscionable." She denied that her statements during the Miller hearing and his parents' case were contradictory. She said there was no doubt the shooter was in mental distress and in crisis, but he does not meet the statutory requirement for mental illness.

Family, friends write letters of support for Crumbley

Smith included 11 letters of support from family members and friends in her sentencing memorandum. Two of those letters were from Crumbley's cellmate in the Oakland County Jail and the cellmate's mother, who said she appreciated the care Crumbley showed for her then-18-year-old daughter when she was jailed.

“Yes she was hurting for her son because no matter what he did it (sic), he was still hers. But what you may not know is that most of those nights she cried for them, the victims. She prayed for them and wept for them and wished she could bring them back,” Crumbley’s cellmate wrote.

Smith identified the people who wrote letters of support for Crumbley by their initials because they fear retaliation and harm if they publicly supported Crumbley, she said.

Crumbley’s minister said in a letter that she’s seen Crumbley go through a transformative journey, marked by genuine reflection and a desire to grasp the pain her son caused. She has the ministry provide her son with emotional and financial support and is still committed to his well-being, the minister wrote.

Crumbley's parents also wrote letters to Matthews, talking about their daughter's mindset immediately after the shooting and in the time she has been in jail. Her dad said Crumbley was shocked and appalled by her son's actions and was terrified by the threats and public outrage.

“After the shooting and before her arrest, she spent countless hours on the phone with us (her dad and me) devastated, crying hysterically, and wishing she were the one dead not the children,” Crumbley’s mom wrote. “All of us, including Jennifer, still cannot reconcile with what Ethan did.”

Crumbley: I wouldn't do anything differently

A point of contention for prosecutors and the parents of the victims was when Crumbley said she wouldn't do anything different in her parenting. Crumbley stuck by this statement in the pre-sentencing report.

"At trial, when I was on the stand I was asked if I would have done anything differently, I testified that I would not have — and that is true without the benefit of of (sic) hindsight that I have now," Crumbley wrote. "With the information I have now, of course my answer would be hugely different. There are so many things that I would change if I could go back in time. I knew my son to be a quiet, good kid, who loved his pets. I never imagined he would hurt other people in the way that he did."

Smith said she stands by that position because of what she knew at the time of the school meeting the day of the shooting.

“Hindsight allows us to endlessly criticize what could have been different, and Mrs. Crumbley has put herself through her own personal hell of rehashing the events of November 30, 2021, and the days and months beforehand to see what she missed,” Smith wrote. “With the benefit NOW of hindsight, she wishes she could go back and change things. ... Mrs. Crumbley was hugely distraught and remorseful, often looking backwards to determine what she should have done differently and wishing she were dead in place of those killed."

Prosecutors said this was not the first time Jennifer made statements like this. She said in a jail call in June 2022 that she would not do anything different.

"Beyond defendant’s gross negligence, her actions after the shooting and her statements in jail calls, during testimony, and after trial show a chilling lack of remorse," prosecutors wrote.

kberg@detroitnews.com