Jury to decide key issue: Was Oxford school shooting 'reasonably foreseeable' by shooter's mom?

After seven full days sitting through emotional testimony, heated lawyer spats, and gut-wrenching video footage of a school shooting, the jury in Jennifer Crumbley's historic trial will begin deliberations Monday to decide this issue: is the mother of the Oxford school shooter responsible for the deaths of four students killed by her son?

The prosecution argues she is; the defense maintains she is not.

Before the jury decides this novel case — Crumbley is the first parent in America to be charged and tried in a mass school shooting — Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Matthews will first read jury instructions to the panel of 17 jurors. She will explain what elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of involuntary manslaughter, which is what Crumbley and her husband, James, were charged with days after the Nov. 30, 2021 massacre at Oxford High School committed by their then 15-year-old son Ethan. James Crumbley goes to trial in March. Their son is serving life in prison without parole after pleading guilty to murdering his four classmates.

After jury instructions are read Monday, Matthews will remove five alternate jurors to whittle the final jury down to 12. All 17 jurors have sat through the entire trial, not knowing who will be excused at the end as an alternate. It's a random draw — so there's no telling what the final makeup will look like.

Currently, the jury has 10 women and seven men. Ten are parents, nine grew up with guns, six own guns.

At the heart of this case is the prosecution's theory that the Crumbleys ignored a son who allegedly was showing signs of being depressed, hallucinating and spiraling, and instead of getting him help, they bought him a gun — the same gun the boy used to kill Tate Myre, 16, Hana St. Juliana, 14, Madisyn Baldwin, 17, and Justin Shilling, 17. Six other students and a teacher also were injured in the shooting.

Jennifer Crumbley, who took the stand in her own defense, has argued that she never imagined or foresaw her son's actions that day, that he was never really "gifted" a gun but that it was secured in the parents' bedroom, and that he was only allowed to use it at the shooting range with his dad. She also said her son did not show signs of being mentally ill other than being anxious about school and his future after graduation, and that he had a good family life, with loving parents who took him on trips, camping and hiking, took his friend on vacations with them, closely monitored his homework, and fostered his soccer and bowling hobbies.

Prosecutor asks Jennifer Crumbley: Why didn't you bring your son home?

Case hinges on reasonable foreseeability

This case hinges on reasonable foreseeability — that is, the prosecution must prove that it was reasonably foreseeable by the parents that their son would commit a mass shooting.

The prosecution has argued the mass shooting was reasonably foreseeable by the Crumbleys, while the parents and their attorneys argue it was not.

With involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution does not need to prove intent. But it must prove these following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

• First, that the individual — in this case Jennifer Crumbley — caused the death of the victim, that is, that the four students died as a result of her actions.

• Secondly, in doing the actions that caused the victim’s death, Crumbley acted in a grossly negligent manner.

Legal experts have held that the "reasonable foreseeability" requirement is perhaps the toughest in this case as the prosecution has to show that the parents reasonably knew that their son was about to shoot up his school.

The Crumbleys have long maintained that they could have never foreseen this, and that when they did learn of a school shooting that day, they feared he may be suicidal — not homicidal — given they had just been summoned to the school over a troubling drawing he had made, and learned that he was sad. School officials also concluded he was upset that day, but not a threat to the school or others, and let him return to class, according to their testimony.

Prosecution: Crumbleys did not exercise 'ordinary care' as parents

The prosecution disagrees, and has argued the following:

• The deaths of four students could have been avoided if the Crumbleys exercised ordinary care and diligence in the raising of their son.

• Their son presented a danger to the community, that danger was apparent to the ordinary mind, that the Crumbleys knew of this danger and had a duty to protect others from their son.

The prosecution cited a handful of text messages sent eight months before the shooting, in which the shooter texted his mom that he saw a "demon" and that clothes were flying. He also texted a friend that he had "paranoia" and was hearing voices — though he later told a psychiatrist that he was watching horror movies when he sent those texts, according to testimony.

Jennifer Crumbley testified that she never saw the texts her son was sending his friend.

The prosecution also cited a journal Ethan Crumbley kept, in which the shooter wrote: "I have zero HELP for my mental problems and it's causing me to shoot up the F------ school."

Jennifer Crumbley testified she never saw that journal, either, and that her son never asked her to take him to a therapist, nor would she ever ignore such a request.

Crumbley: School officials told me my son posed no threat, and was better off staying in school

But then came testimony about the violent drawing, perhaps the most damning information presented in the case. On the morning of the shooting, the Crumbleys were summoned to the school over a troubling drawing their son had made featuring a gun, a bleeding human body, and the words, "The thoughts won't stop. Help me."

School officials told the parents their son was having a hard time, but the boy didn't want to go home. So school officials, unaware that the teen might have access to a gun, gave him the option of staying, concluding he was no threat to the school, and that it would be better for him to be around peers.

The parents returned to their jobs, and promised to get their son counseling within 48 hours.

Two hours later, the boy fired his first shot.

Jennifer Crumbley testified that she and her husband did not bring him home because they were following the advice of the experts at school who, she said, told her her son would be better off in class with peers rather than home alone.

No one checked the shooter's backpack

According to trial testimony, no one at the school ever searched the shooter's backpack for a gun, though that's where he was hiding it. His parents also never asked him about the gun that he and his dad had just bought together, four days earlier, nor did they ever inform the school about it.

But school officials never asked the parents if their son had access to a gun, either, they testified. And they didn't search the backpack, they said, because they believed there was no probable cause to do so.

They prosecution, meanwhile, argued to the jury that this isn't about what school officials did or didn't do — but about what the Crumbleys did and didn't do. And that the parents, more than anyone, could have prevented the shooting had they informed the school about the gun, or, taken their son home when they were summoned over his drawing.

More: Jennifer Crumbley's trial turns up heat on school officials: Why wasn't backpack searched?

Crumbley testified she didn't think it was relevant to notify the school that her son had access to a gun at home, and saying she never thought her son would harm others as he had never been in trouble before, had no discipline issues, and this was her first time being called to the school over a behavior issue.

During her testimony, Crumbley also addressed the texts her son sent her about demons. She said her son was just "messing with us," that it was part of a family prank in which he and his dad made up names of house ghosts, and pretended the house was haunted. She said her son also played with a Ouiji board, and made videos of paranormal activities and pranks, like pretending a ghost was opening and closing a door, or videotaping his dad pretending to get electrocuted.

Key moments from trial

• During her testimony, Crumbley told jurors that she hadn’t seen anything to suggest that her son needed mental health treatment, that she never believed her son was a threat to others, and that she never refused to take him home after the meeting with school officials on the day of the shooting but was following the advice of school officials. She testified: "I wish he would have killed us instead."

• Prosecutors, in seeking to show the Crumbleys were unconcerned about their son's mental wellbeing and knew he was dangerous, cited the parents' actions on the morning of the shooting, when they were summoned to the school over their son's troubling drawing. Jennifer Crumbley sent her husband a messages on Facebook. She wrote “Emergency” and sent him a picture of the drawing. She also wrote: “He said he was distraught about last night” and “I’m very concerned headed to his school.” She testified that the night before the shooting, the couple had fought with their son over his falling geometry grades.

• Under questioning by the prosecution over why she never told school officials about the gun, which had just been purchased days earlier, Jennifer Crumbley testified she “didn’t think it was relevant.”

• The Crumbleys expressed regret over leaving their son in school. Prosecutors showed video of James and Jennifer Crumbley in a sheriff’s office substation hours after the shooting. Jennifer Crumbley said, “I really wish we …” “Would have taken him home,” her husband said, as they finished the sentence together. In a videotaped conversation with investigators, James Crumbley said the 9mm gun used in the shooting had been in a gun case, hidden in an armoire in their home and that the bullets were in a different spot. According to trial testimony, the bullets were hidden under some jeans in a drawer, and a key to the gun lock was hidden in a beer stein.

• There were multiple red flags at school before the shooting. An Oxford High School counselor testified there were several incidents involving Ethan Crumbley before the shooting — a teacher reported he had been falling asleep in class; he wrote an autobiography poem calling his family “a mistake”; just weeks before the shooting, a teacher said the teen was “having a rough time”; the day before the shooting he was researching bullets in class, and the day of the shooting he was seen watching videos of people being gunned down and then made a troubling drawing. Jennifer Crumbley testified that the school never alerted her about most of those problems, notifying her only about her son researching bullets, and the drawing.

• Texts about ghosts and the shooter needing help were used extensively. The prosecution sought to paint Jennifer Crumbley as a neglectful mother who was ignoring her son while she and her husband rode their horses, showing messages Ethan Crumbley had sent saying the house was haunted and he saw a demon throwing bowls. She testified her son had long thought the house was haunted and that he was "messing with us." Prosecutors also showed texts the shooter sent to a friend about asking his parents for help. He told his friend that when he asked his dad to take him to the doctor he gave him pills and that his “mom laughed” when he told her. Jennifer Crumbley testified her son never asked her about seeing a doctor.

'No one could have expected this'

Closing arguments lasted for more than three hours Friday, with one side urging the jury to convict a mother who couldn't do even "the smallest of things" that could have saved four lives, while the other side implored the jury to acquit Crumbley, arguing the prosecution "cherry picked" meaningless details as part of a "witch hunt" to hold an innocent mother responsible for a crime neither she, nor anyone else, could have foreseen.

Defense attorney Shannon Smith told jurors in her closing argument that “no one could have expected this, including Mrs. Crumbley” and the assistant principal who knew the shooter since middle school. Smith asked the jury to remember the testimony of Assistant Principal Kristy Gibson-Marshall, who encountered the gunman in a hallway during his rampage: "I asked if he was OK. It just didn't seem right that it would be him … I didn't think it was possible that he was the shooter."

'She said she wouldn't do one thing different'

But Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald urged jurors to remember the testimony of Jennifer Crumbley, particularly when she was asked if she would have done anything differently.

"She said she wouldn't do one thing different." McDonald said.

Crumbley did, however, state: "I wish he would have killed us instead."

Testimony in the case concluded with McDonald getting the last word as she urged the jurors to consider the Crumbleys' actions in the counselor's office when they were summoned over the drawing, and ask themselves: Why the Crumbleys didn't tell the school about the gun, why didn't they pull their son aside and ask him if he was okay or hug him, or why didn't they bring him home from school that day.

“The tragic part about it is none of it was hard. None of it,” McDonald said. "The smallest thing, just the smallest thing, could have saved Hana and Tate and Justin and Madisyn.”

Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@freepress.com and Gina Kaufman: gkaufman@freepress.com

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Jury to decide: Was Oxford school shooting 'reasonably foreseeable' by mom?