Prosecutor goes off on Jennifer Crumbley's lawyer: She's traumatizing the victims

As if the Oxford school shooter's parents' involuntary manslaughter case hasn't produced enough drama, prosecution and defense attorneys are now feuding, with both sides accusing the other of spewing half-truths and trying to taint the jury pool.

The lawyer for shooter Ethan Crumbley's mom argued that the prosecutor violated a gag order by discussing the case on TV over the weekend, while the prosecutor says the defense attorney falsely claimed in a court filing that the shooter told a psychiatrist he never asked his parents to take him to therapy.

The shooter's lawyer also jumped into the fray Wednesday and accused the mom's lawyer of spreading "inaccurate," "misleading" and "prejudicial" information about the shooter just three weeks before his sentencing. Defense attorney Paulette Loftin maintains that the shooter "has repeatedly and consistently said that he asked for help and his parents did not get it for him," and that suggesting otherwise violates his rights.

"The shooter did, in fact, ask (his mom) to see a therapist," Chief Assistant Prosecutor Dave Williams wrote in a filing late Tuesday, when he accused Jennifer Crumbley's lawyer Shannon Smith of spreading false information in a public court filing. "It is equally clear she did so in the hopes of creating false headlines, which is, ironically, something she frequently accuses the prosecution of doing."

Hogwash, countered Smith, who in a Wednesday morning filing denied making any false statements and accused the prosecution of trying to control the narrative about what Ethan Crumbley told a psychiatrist about asking his parents for help.

According to Smith's filing, the shooter told the same psychiatrist two different things — that he asked for treatment and that he didn't ask for treatment — though Smith said she didn't discover the latter part until she went through a box of Crumbley's mental health records provided to her last week.

'Clearly, the shooter is not reliable'

According to court records, the psychiatrist had written in her notes that Ethan Crumbley told her he didn't ask his parents for a therapist, which is different from what the therapist wrote in a competency report and testified to during a court proceeding, when she said he asked for help.

"Clearly, the shooter is not reliable. (He) has made statements both that he did and did not ask for help," Smith wrote, maintaining some of that information favors the defense. "Somehow the prosecution thinks it is okay to use the quotes they like, but claim the ones they don’t like are protected by (a) protective order."

Smith added: "The prosecution’s frustration that information it does not like may come out does not mean it is false or intended to taint anyone ... to repeatedly make it sound like (I) fabricated information out of thin air is wrong and offensive."

And so goes the latest chapter in this legal slugfest that has produced nonstop court filings in recent weeks as both sides get closer to trying the historic case of James and Jennifer Crumbley, the first parents in America charged in a mass school shooting.

The Crumbleys are facing separate trials as soon as January on involuntary manslaughter charges for buying their son the gun that he used in the shooting, and for not disclosing that to the school when given the chance. Four students were killed in the 2021 shooting at Oxford High School. Six other students and a teacher were injured.

Ethan Crumbley's mental health has played a key role in the parents' case as the prosecution has long argued that the Crumbleys ignored a troubled child who was spiraling out of control and bought him a gun instead of getting him help.

What prosecutors say Jennifer Crumbley's lawyer did wrong

The shooter's mental health records came into play this week after the mom's attorney asked for more time to prepare her witness list and file any potential objections before trial, given the voluminous file she had just received pertaining to the shooter's mental health. It was in that request that she disclosed Ethan Crumbley's contradictory statements to a psychiatrist, which prompted the prosecution to push for sanctioning Smith, alleging she violated a protective order by disclosing information that should have remained under seal.

Ethan Crumbley's lawyer agreed and asked the judge Wednesday to find that Smith violated the protective order.

Moreover, the prosecution alleged that Smith's "false statements are particularly egregious" for the following reasons:

"First, this is an extremely high-profile case where the court has emphasized the need to avoid tainting the jury pool.

"Second, false reports about the case are extremely traumatic for the victims and their families.

"Finally her excuse in this case — that she didn't even read the (psychiatrist's) records — makes this violation extraordinary."

The prosecution is referring to a competency report that the psychiatrist at issue drafted and testified about during a hearing for the shooter over the summer.

In her response, Smith denied tainting the jury pool, filing false reports or violating the protective order.

"The information at issue ... is not confidential or private information. It has been a public issue for nearly two years now," Smith writes. "There was no context given, no dates, no private information shared that was dissimilar to materials that have been repeatedly raised in the public eye throughout this case and the shooter’s case."

As for the prosecutor's claims that she didn't read the psychiatrist's report, Smith noted that she specifically stated in her filing that her staff had completed a "cursory" review of Ethan Crumbley's mental health records to which defense attorneys only recently got access when it "quickly" identified contradictory information in the doctor's notes.

"(My) staff began highlighting things that stuck out immediately against the prosecution’s narrative. One of the first highlighted items came from notes and does state that the shooter denied telling his parents he wanted to see a therapist," Smith wrote, adding she had the document and page number to verify this.

What the defense alleges Oakland prosecutor did wrong

"The point of the motion was to explain there is material in favor of the defense, and the defense simply needs more time to be able to finish reading it and file motions," Smith writes, adding: "There are no 'false statements.' There are statements the prosecution does not like."

Smith alleges the prosecution is retaliating against her for accusing Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald of violating a gag order in this case during a Sunday interview about gun violence on television station WXYZ. The gag order prohibits both sides from publicly discussing the parents' case. Smith wants McDonald sanctioned over what she said on TV, though the prosecutor's office scoffed at her allegations and Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews concluded Wednesday that McDonald did not violate the gag order, but only made a "generic statement" about how charging decisions are made in all cases.

At issue for Smith was McDonald's response to a TV interviewer's comments about the jury potentially acquitting the Crumbleys, and what type of message that would send: "Right, so I can’t comment on that case, but I’ll tell you that we don’t charge cases that we don’t believe we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt."

"These motions are frivolous, and perplexing," Assistant Prosecutor Williams argued in another filing, maintaining McDonald is in "full compliance" with the gag order and that any suggestion otherwise is "absolutely false."

"These motions appear to be an attempt to create a narrative in the media around the prosecutor, and to direct attention from the case against the defendants," Williams wrote.

As for McDonald's comments during the 20-minute interview, Williams said the prosecutor spoke only about how to prevent gun violence, and twice refused to discuss the Crumbleys' case when asked, citing the gag order. All she did, Williams wrote, was state "what is obvious and not prejudicial — that her office only brings charges that it can ethically sustain, and that she always strives to do the right thing."

The Crumbleys are scheduled to go to trial on Jan. 23, though the judge last week granted the wife's request for her own trial. With the spouses now each having their own trials, it is not yet known when they will take place, or who will go first.

A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 22.

Meanwhile, Ethan Crumbley, who last year pleaded guilty to all his crimes, faces up to life in prison without the possibility of parole when he is sentenced next month.

Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@freepress.com

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Crumbley parents' school shooting case gets nastier as lawyers fight