Crumbleys back in court to spar with the prosecutor: We never said our son snapped

With their son now a convicted school shooter, James and Jennifer Crumbley return to court Friday to continue their feud with the prosecution as it seeks to hold them responsible for the deaths of four students killed by their son.

The Crumbleys' trial on involuntary manslaughter charges has been rescheduled for Jan. 17.

At issue for the Crumbleys is the prosecutor's plan to use mass shooting experts to argue that the Nov. 30 massacre was preventable - and that the shooter didn't just snap, but was enabled by his parents and set on a pathway to violence.

On Friday, both sides will present arguments to Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews about why the mass shooting experts should — or should not — be allowed to testify.

For the prosecution, the experts are key to pursuing its Pathway to Violence strategy, which hinges on a theory that the Oxford shooter didn't just snap, but followed a path paved for him by prior shooters and was enabled by his parents - who bought him the gun that was used in the shooting and allegedly ignored his cries for help with mental health issues over the years.

"Their primary, perhaps sole defense, is that they were just as surprised as anyone else when their son murdered four classmates," Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Marc Keast has previously argued in court records about the Crumbleys. "That idea, that shooters just snap, is a myth."

Keast also has argued that unless a mass shooting expert is allowed to testify at trial, jurors "will be inclined to believe the misconception that this shooting came out of the blue."

The defense countered in court filings this week that the prosecution is making false assumptions.

"While the prosecution has repeatedly claimed that the defense is arguing that (Ethan Crumbley) just 'snapped,' this is absolutely not true," the Crumbleys' lawyers, Shannon Smith and Mariell Lehman, argued in a court filing. "Just because the parents were 'shocked' or 'surprised' by what happened does not mean that the defense is claiming he simply 'snapped.' "

The Crumbleys' lawyers also contend that the experts' testimony is irrelevant in the parents' case and won't help the jury decide what are otherwise commonsense decisions. For example, they argue, a jury doesn't need an expert to help them decide if a crime was preventable, or if a shooter snapped. The jurors can, and should, be able to make such decision on their own, they argue, adding case law also holds the following: "An expert witness is not permitted to tell the jury how to decide a case."

The defense also argues that Pathway to Violence is a "relatively novel" area of study with no widely accepted scientific consensus.

The Crumbleys are the first parents in America charged in a mass school shooting. Prosecutors allege the parents ignored a troubled son who was crying out for help, but rather than get him medical help, they bought him a gun. Moreover, prosecutors argue, when the parents were called to the school on the morning of the shooting over their son's troubling behavior, they could have and should have told the school he had access to a gun.

But they didn't.

Instead, the Crumbleys insisted their son be returned to class. A few hours later, Ethan Crumbley emerged from a school bathroom and started firing.

The defense argues the Crumbleys had no way of knowing their son would carry out a school shooting that day, and maintains the parents had the gun locked in a drawer, though Ethan Crumbley said at his plea hearing on Monday that the weapon was not locked.

The hearing begins at 9 a.m.

Tresa Baldas:tbaldas@freepress.com

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Jennifer, James Crumbley back in court: We never said our son snapped