Guns and parental responsibility dominate jury selection in Jennifer Crumbley's case

On Day 1 of jury selection in the historic Oxford school shooting case, the judge stressed over and over again that Jennifer Crumbley's case isn't about the right to own guns — yet the topic kept coming up.

So did parental responsibility, which is perhaps the strongest theme in this unprecedented case as a prosecutor is seeking to do what no one else has ever done: hold a mom and dad responsible for a mass school shooting.

In this case, four children were shot and killed by the son of the mother on trial. Ethan Crumbley, then 15, carried out his crime using a gun that his parents had bought him as an early Christmas present.

"Everything about this case is extremely sad," Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews told the jury pool on Tuesday, stressing repeatedly that the case must be decided only on the evidence presented at trial.

Not emotions. Not opinions. Not preconceived notions about what jurors may think this case is about, Matthews said, noting jurors may have heard a lot about the shooter's case, "but I don't think you have heard as much about this case."

As jury selection resumes Wednesday morning, both sides will try to weed out potentially biased or problematic jurors and seat a panel of 12 people who can decide the fate of Jennifer Crumbley, 45, who is charged with involuntary manslaughter for her alleged role in the deaths of four students killed by her son in the Nov. 30, 2021 shooting at Oxford High School. Her husband, James Crumbley, is also facing the same charges and is scheduled to go on trial in March.

Prosecutors are seeking to hold the parents responsible for the deaths of Hana St. Juliana, 14; Tate Myre, 16; Madisyn Baldwin, 17; and Justin Shilling, 17.

What prospective jurors said in court

The shooter pleaded guilty to all his crimes, including murdering four students and injuring six students and a teacher, and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole last month, though he is appealing. To the chagrin of his mother, he is also refusing to testify in her case and wants his medical records withheld from her trial, according to new court filings this week, including one in which the mom's lawyer asked the judge to order the shooter to testify at his mom's trial.

Every prospective juror questioned so far said they have heard of the Oxford school shooting. Most have opinions about what happened, guns, and how parents should raise their kids — some stronger than others.

One man, a gun owner who hunts, said: "I believe that some of the adults in our society aren't taking responsibility for their kids' actions." He's remains on the panel of potential jurors.

One mother of a 10-year-old child said, "When I think about this case, I feel rage." She's still on the panel.

Another man said: "It could have been avoided." While a woman said: "I highly oppose guns. It is legal, unfortunately." Both were dismissed.

On Wednesday, the goal for both sides will be to find out exactly how passionate the remaining folks are about guns and parental responsibility, and decide whether they can set those opinions aside and be fair and impartial jurors.

Nearly all 17 sitting in the jury box said they believe they can be fair — with a few still having doubts, given that children died at the hands of a teenage shooter, a boy who prosecutors argue was troubled and depressed, yet ignored by his parents who bought him a gun instead of getting him help.

'Not here to decide how you should store a gun'

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald addressed the 17 potential jurors seated so far on Wednesday, and stressed to them that this case is about one thing: "gross negligence."

That's what she has long argued the Crumbleys engaged in by ignoring a troubled son who needed help, and bought him a gun instead. She didn't mention that to the jury pool, however.

Rather, McDonald noted the following:

"This trial is a search for the truth, to seek justice, and to make sure the defendant gets a fair trial," McDonald said, later adding: "We're not here to decide how you should store a gun."

While addressing the jury pool, McDonald also shared information about her own life: how she grew up in a house learning how to hunt, how she used to be a judge, was on a ballot for 12 years and has raised five teenagers.

The topic of guns, however, dominated the jury selection process as the judge sought to find out how passionate jurors were about the subject, which elicited many opinions from several gun owners and non-gun owners alike. Several talked about the importance of securing a gun, which is a key issue in this case as the Crumbleys are accused of not properly securing the gun that their son used in the shooting.

A dangerous precedent for parents everywhere?

The Crumbleys, however, maintain the gun at issue was properly secured.

Jennifer Crumbley's lawyer, Shannon Smith, who will likely address the jury pool on Wednesday, has long argued that the parents had no way of knowing their son would commit a school shooting and that the prosecutor is overreaching in this case. She maintains this case, if it ends in a conviction, will set a dangerous precedent for parents everywhere whose kids get into trouble.

So far, a pool of 300 prospective jurors has been summoned for jury selection in Jennifer Crumbley's case. The goal is to whittle that number down to 17, which will include 12 jurors and five alternates.

The judge is optimistic that a jury will be seated by the end of the day Wednesday, though if one is not and the pool of 300 has been exhausted, another pool of 1,000 individuals will be summoned on Thursday.

Jury selection resumes at 9 a.m. Wednesday.

Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@freepress.com

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Guns, parental responsibility dominate Jennifer Crumbley jury selection