Jennifer Crumbley jury goes home after full day of deliberation
After nearly seven hours of deliberations, the jury in Jennifer Crumbley's historic trial went home for the day and will return Tuesday morning to continue the daunting task of reaching a verdict in an unprecedented case that seeks to hold the mother of the Oxford school shooter responsible for the deaths of four students killed by her son.
During deliberations Monday, the jury of six men and six women asked two questions of the judge, including one that involved the shooter, and whether or not jurors can infer anything about this case based on the fact that the shooter didn't testify, or any other witnesses who could explain how he got the gun.
That question was the second one of the day, with jurors asking whether they can infer anything based on evidence or witnesses that the prosecution did not present. More specifically, the jury asked whether it could infer anything by the prosecution not bringing in the shooter, or anyone else who could answer how he got the gun.
The answer is no, said Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews, who called the jury out of deliberations to briefly explain.
"You can only make a decision based on evidence in this case," Matthews told the jury. "Make your decision only on what I let in, and nothing else."
First question involved what prosecutors must prove
Crumbley, the first parent in America charged in a school shooting, faces four counts of involuntary manslaughter stemming from her son Ethan Crumbley's murder of four fellow students at Oxford High School on Nov. 30, 2021. The shooter, who was 15 at the time of the incident, in which seven people also were wounded, pleaded guilty and is serving life in prison without parole. His father, James, faces the same charges as Jennifer Crumbley and is to go on trial March 5.
The jury started deliberating at about 10 a.m. Monday, posing its first question at about noon. It asked for clarification about which theory of involuntary manslaughter must be proven.
The jurors appeared to seek clarity about the two theories under which the prosecution alleges Crumbley engaged in involuntary manslaughter.
One theory is that Crumbley engaged in gross negligence by storing the gun and bullets in a way that gave her son access to the weapon, and therefore caused the deaths of four students.
The other theory is that Crumbley failed to perform her legal duty to control her son and prevent him from harming others.
'Failure to exercise reasonable control'
Jurors can use either theory to convict Crumbley. And they don't all have to agree on which theory — though there are several requirements to prove these theories, and various caveats.
With regard to the legal duty theory, according to the jury instructions, the jury must find that Jennifer Crumbley knew or had reason to know that she had the ability to control her son, and knew of the necessity and opportunity for exercising that control.
Under that same legal duty theory, prosecutors also must prove that Jennifer Crumbley knew of the facts that gave rise to the duty to control her son; that she willfully neglected or refused to perform that duty and by doing so was grossly negligent to human life; and that the deaths were caused by her failure to perform that duty — meaning the students died as a result of her “failure to exercise reasonable care” to control her child.
More: Judge on historic trial of Oxford shooter's parent managing dust-ups, emotions in court
The judge referred the panel to a jury instruction that basically says this: Prosecutors don't have to prove both theories. And all jurors don't have to agree on the same one. As long as all jurors agree to one or the other, the crime of involuntary manslaughter has been proven.
Seventeen jurors sat through the entire trial, not knowing who would be alternates. Five were selected randomly on Monday. Three of them were told they do not have to return to court Tuesday, though they still have to sequester at home should the court need them.
The final panel includes six women and six men. Based on descriptions and comments during jury selection, here's what we know about them.
The jurors
White female. Works in human resources. Has two adult children. Her father was a hunter. “I gave up watching all the news in all forms six years ago. I’m pretty uninformed.” Regarding her father’s guns, “I know my dad’s guns were always locked. It was not for the children.”
White, 26-year-old married male. Said he grew up in a strict, Christian home. He works in sales for the mortgage industry. He took hunter safety classes when he was 16, but is not an avid hunter. His father has a gun and a concealed-carry permit. The juror said he doesn’t have strong opinions on guns. He doesn’t have cable TV, tries to stay away from social media and despises TikTok.
White female hairstylist who said she’s familiar with the case, has no issues with guns and can be impartial.
White female, married. Has guns in the house and said they “are locked up.” She has two grown children and recalls taking gun safety classes as a family when the kids were in elementary school. She works for a bank and her husband is in advertising. “I feel like I can be fair,” she said.
White female. Married and retired compliance specialist. Her husband is a retired meat market owner and her daughter a special education teacher. She was on a jury many years ago, but remembers little to nothing about the case.
White male doctor who said, “I’ve seen a lot of gun violence.” Owns multiple guns that he stores in a safe. He calls himself a “very strong proponent” of the Second Amendment and goes to shooting ranges about once a month, maybe every two months. He has lost two loved ones to suicide by a gun.
White male. Automotive engineer with twin teenagers. He has a collector’s gun that belonged to a relative who served in a war. He remembers being a kid and learning how to shoot a shotgun, though he is not into guns as an adult, beyond owning his collector’s item.
Single white female. No children. She has a gun for personal protection, worked 16 years as a police officer for a university. Now she handles parking tickets.
Black male, single. No children. Works as a manager in sales. His father had a gun and taught him about gun safety.
Single white male who works as a powertrain engineer. He doesn’t own any guns, but went to a shooting range with his girlfriend over the last year for fun. He grew up in Nebraska. He said his engineering brain makes him a good juror as he will be able to carefully analyze evidence as it applies to the charges. Defense attorney Shannon Smith joked with him that, “We don’t let engineers sit on juries” because they typically see the world in black and white. “But there’s a lot of gray space in this case,” Smith said. The juror said he understood and that he could be fair.
White male parole officer who said he’s “fair to a fault” and sees “success stories” in his work involving prisoners who turn their lives around. He’s married, has two older teenagers. Has guns that he keeps in a storage unit. His kids are not interested in guns. Before his 20-year career in law enforcement, he worked for the government’s Medicaid and food stamp programs.
White married female with an infant son. Works in billing for university students. She is originally from the Upper Peninsula and used to be a hunter. She remembers getting days off from school as a kid during hunting season, but she no longer hunts. Her sister was a target of a school shooting that was stopped.
The alternates
Single white female who works as an account manager for rental properties. Lives with her parents.
White female engineer, husband is a lawyer. She doesn't have to return to court Tuesday pending further notice. She said she can be fair and impartial and that “it’s not a good-bad parent decision” the jury will be making in this case, stating: “That’s not why we’re here.” She did note, however, that she no longer goes to movie theaters or shopping malls following a mass shooting in Colorado that shook her sense of security.
White female. First-grade teacher, married with two grown children and one older teenager. “I don’t have guns, but I understand that it’s legal,” she said.
White male, works in vehicle logistics. He does not have to return to court Tuesday pending further notice. He owns several guns and remembers tagging along with his dad to gun ranges when he was 10. His best friend is a police officer in a jail and his girlfriend is a personal trainer.
White female, married with two school-age children and works in veterinary medicine. She does not have to return to court Tuesday pending further notice. “When I think about this case, I feel rage,” she said of the Oxford shooting. She grew up with guns. Her dad hunted and her sister is a competitive shooter, though she said her husband is “very anti-guns” and “just doesn’t want them in our house.”
Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@freepress.com
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Jennifer Crumbley jury goes home after full day of deliberation
