Watch replay: Jennifer Crumbley testimony ends in involuntary manslaughter case

Testimony and closing arguments ended Friday in the trial of Jennifer Crumbley, the first parent in America to stand trial on charges seeking to imprison her over a child's school shooting.

The defendant was the last witness, as she faced cross-examination as she took the witness stand Friday for a second day in an Oakland County courtroom.

Jurors will begin considering the case on Monday.

The involuntary manslaughter charges against Jennifer Crumbley and her husband, James, who goes on trial in March, allege that they were inattentive parents who ignored their son's mental health struggles and pleas for help, but bought him a gun on Black Friday 2021, which he used days later to kill four classmates at Oxford High School and injure seven other people.

More: Jennifer Crumbley tries to humanize her embattled family from the witness stand

Follow live here. The most recent excerpts appear below the video:

Prosecution's last word: Crumbley failed to take 'smallest' actions

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald, in her rebuttal, told jurors their “job is to consider the facts and the evidence in this case.”

She said: “The people do not have to prove that Jennifer Crumbley knew that there was going to be a homicide or a school shooting.”

She added: “I have to prove that she had a legal duty, she negligently performed that legal duty, she negligently did not take steps to take care and protect the other children in that school when there was a reasonable foreseeability that ordinary care was required.

“The smallest of things. The smallest of things.”

McDonald said Ethan Crumbley “literally drew a picture” of what he was going to do that he said “Help me” and included an illustration of the gun that his parents bought him and that Jennifer Crumbley “posted and bragged about.”

McDonald said the prosecution is about nothing except the facts of the case “and what Jennifer Crumbley did and what she didn’t do. If only I could look at the faces of these parents who are dealing with unspeakable darkness and grief. If only I could make that better, I could appease them … by charging Jennifer Crumbley.”

McDonald said prosecutors met their burden.

“When she took the stand, when she testified about her own loss and she was asked the question you lost everything, she said yes,” McDonald said. “She hasn’t lost everything, ladies and gentlemen, her son is still alive. Find her guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter.”

Defense works to outline reasonable doubts

Defense attorney Smith noted the prosecutor's final words about the case: "This is shocking, unthinkable, unbelievable, unfathomable," Smith said, stressing there's a reason for all this:

"No one expected this," Smith said. "No one could have expected this, including Mrs. Crumbley."

Smith argued to the jury this case is one of hindsight.

"When you look back in hindsight, it is easy to say, this could have been different, that could have been different, this could have changed," Smith said.

"When you get full context to the evidence that is being used, in this case, the prosecutor has cherry-picked little pieces of evidence out of a mountain of evidence ... and when you get cherry-picked evidence, it's easy to get a wrong conclusion."

Smith conceded, "She's not a perfect person or a perfect parent," Smith said, noting her client got on the stand and exposed "every nook and cranny" of her life to the world.

"She wanted you to see the whole truth ... where she had to show you that she has made immoral decisions to have an affair ... Mrs. Crumbley got up there and literally stripped her armor and let the prosecution cross-examine her about what happened in her messy life," said Smith.

"If you hate her ... that's OK, too. You don't have to like her," Smith said.

'This case is a very dangerous one for parents out there'

Smith used some of her closing argument to talk about her life as a parent to four children, telling jurors she doesn't monitor their school assignments or cellphone messages.

Speaking of her teenage son, "If he starts looking at nude pictures on his cellphone that I got him on his birthday, should I be held accountable?  ... Am I responsible if he sends a picture of his penis to a girl?" Smith said.

"Can every parent really be responsible for everything their children to do, especially when it's not foreseeable?" she asked.

That's what happened here, she said, stressing repeatedly that the shooting was not foreseeable for Jennifer Crumbley.

"This case is a very dangerous one for parents out there. And it is the first of its kind," she said, adding: "The prosecution cannot prove its burden of proof."

She went on to blast the prosecution, saying it "was so desperate to bring this case" that it brought in a mountain of evidence that was "designed to inflame you and get you to hate Mrs. Crumbley, which, by the way, has been very effective."

Smith said the prosecution provided no context around little bits of “useless evidence,” like Jennifer Crumbley calling her son an “oopsie baby.”

“I call my son that, so what, does that mean I hate my son?” Smith said.

Smith said the jury can find reasonable doubt from the context Jennifer Crumbley provided when she testified, including her understanding of a running family joke about ghosts in the house — a reference to text messages Ethan Crumbley had sent to his mother about the house being haunted and seeing a demon throwing bowls.

Jennifer Crumbley testified this week that her son had been convinced the house was haunted, that he and a friend played with a Ouija board and the messages amounted to him “messing around.”

Smith also went through evidence that prosecutors introduced showing Jennifer Crumbley and her husband at a barn on the day that her son was texting about seeing a demon in the house in March 2021.

Smith said: “So there’s concern … Mrs. Crumbley’s son is making weird comments and on the 9th she goes to the barn and she takes some horse pictures. That’s all that shows. Pretty minimal.”

She proceeded to attack the prosecution's exhibits that she argues show nothing illegal.

'If they had better evidence, they would be up here showing' it

Pictures of Jennifer Crumbley on her horse, and texts to her husband that she was going to "get drunk" and go horseback riding on St. Patrick's Day. So what? she asked; her client was drinking on St. Patrick's Day.

"Big deal. Jennifer is at the barn. Their son is texting something weird," she said, noting her son played with Ouiji boards and was involved in regular pranks with his family.

"If they had better evidence, they would be up here showing (it)," Smith said. "This is it, ladies and gentlemen."

In the end, she said: "The Crumbleys' son was a skilled manipulator, and they didn't realize it."

She said their son "has no history of hallucinations. He has never shown his parents signs of mental illness.

"No parent would purchase a weapon if they believed their child had mental illness," Smith said, noting that the Crumbleys already had two guns in their house "and nothing happened."

"They had no reason to believe that this third gun was going to make the difference," Smith said.

Smith told jurors: “The other thing that you can find as a reasonable doubt in the is the lack of evidence in the case as a whole. The prosecution has made very serious claims. And when you really look at it, they have very little evidence.”

She held up a large stack of Facebook messages between James and Jennifer Crumbley and showed that prosecutors are using a small amount of them as evidence.

Smith also showed a tall stack of text messages between Ethan Crumbley and his friend that she said contains more than 20,000 messages. The prosecution presented some of those messages where Jennifer Crumbley’s son wrote things including that he asked his dad to take him to the doctor, “but he just gave me some pills” and that when he asked to go to the doctor his mother “laughed.”

“I don’t disagree with the prosecution that these are alarming messages,” Smith said. But the shooter’s friend did not text him back or tell Jennifer Crumbley about them; Smith also said there is no evidence Jennifer Crumbley ever saw the messages.

She said her client also never saw the parts of her son’s journal presented by prosecutors.

“To evaluate this case you have to look at it from the perspective of what she knew,” Smith said. “So the journal information and the small amount of texts compared to all the texts with his friend are things she didn’t know about.”

Smith: Charges were brought too soon

Smith also defended her client's withdrawal of thousands of dollars from the family's bank accounts after the shooting.

"For her wanting to have cash makes absolute sense," she said, arguing using credit cards anywhere would help people identify her at a time when the Crumbleys say they had been threatened. Smith said Jennifer Crumbley was scared, not fleeing, noting that she was carrying a syringe of horse medicine in her pocket.

"Her intent was not to flee. Her intent was to stay safe," Smith said, adding: "The Crumbleys weren't running. They just wanted to turn themselves in."

Smith noted the texts from the Crumbleys to their lawyers said just that, and their phone alarms were set to 6 a.m. for the following morning, which jurors saw.

Regarding the gun, Smith said:

"It is important to point out that James was responsible for storage of the gun," she said.

Smith also defended Jennifer Crumbley's dedication to work.

"Shes the one with the professional career ... He's a DoorDash driver. She's trying to pay the bills. She's the breadwinner ... She shouldn't be dinged for that," Smith said.

"If you are upset with how the gun was hidden, that's not your case ... she is not the person responsible for storing this weapon," Smith said.

"It's a gross overstatement to keep saying the gun was his gift," Smith said, arguing it was more like giving a child a laptop, cellphone, car or jet ski to use. "It doesn't really mean the kids have free access to stuff. It comes with conditions and parameters.

"Unfortunately,  the prosecution brought charges too soon," Smith said. "The prosecution and law enforcement have approached this case with tunnel vision from Day One."

Smith also criticized the prosecution for portraying her client as a cold, distant mother by pointing out that she didn't hug her son in the school office.

"Giving him a hug that day in the office was going to stop a mass shooting — there's nothing to prove that anything could stop a school shooting," Smith said.

Smith urged the jurors to dive into the couples' hundreds of text messages, saying they're going to find "a lot of instances where Mrs. Crumbley is anxious about where her son is," arguments between her and her husband and even sex talk.

"You will read a variety of messages that show real life, and it should make no difference that they mention their horse's name than their sons," Smith said, noting "even if they don't use their son's name," when they say "he," that's who they are talking about."

Smith stressed again that this case could set a dangerous precedent for any parent who is trying their best.

"I do wish, more than anything, that this case could bring justice to victims of the shooting, and to the victims of the terrorism that day," Smith said. "This is not justice. This is not how justice works. This does nothing for people who have lost everything ... and it does nothing to (undo) the tragedy that unfolded on Nov. 30."

"The prosecution cannot prove that Mrs. Crumbley knew there was a danger by her son, or that she was grossly negligent, and there is no way she could foresee" the shooting, she said.

Prosecutor argues for conviction

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald delivered the closing statement, telling jurors: “I have been watching you, diligently taking notes and listening.” She reminded jurors that she told them at the outset that the trial would not be easy, given what happened.

“I suspect many of you feel the way that we do, that it’s difficult, but we owe it to the victims and their families to say what happened. And you’ve listened and you’ve done that,” McDonald said.

She said she believes the prosecution has met its burden to prove Jennifer Crumbley is guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter.

“It means you had to sit and listen to a lot of very emotional things,” McDonald said.

“What happened on that day, every single person in that building had never experienced anything like that in their entire lives,” McDonald said, adding she hopes they never have to again.

She said the prosecution's job was to give jurors all of the facts and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jennifer Crumbley is guilty.

“And I believe we’ve done that,” McDonald said.

She said the jury’s job is to decide what really happened, find the truth and apply the law. She told jurors: “You’re allowed to use your own observations and your own insight."

McDonald explained to jurors the elements of involuntary manslaughter and what the prosecution had to prove. She told jurors that they must find beyond a reasonable doubt “the deaths were the natural or necessary result of the defendant’s act” and also that Jennifer Crumbley’s “son’s act of shooting someone was reasonably foreseeable.”

McDonald also went through the witnesses and summarized their testimony, including that of ATF Special Agent Brett Brandon. She said jurors heard him testify that as soon as he saw that surveillance video, he knew the shooter was proficient with a firearm.

“And what he did was start going to gun ranges,” she said, adding that what he was thinking was “who taught that kid to shoot? He must have been to a range and he was right and that’s how the investigation led to where Jennifer Crumbley’s son learned how to handle a firearm that eventually resulted in killing four students in Oxford High School.”

She said Brandon also testified that a 9mm is a more dangerous gun and talked to them about what trigger locks.

McDonald also said: “We don’t have to really argue about whose gun that was. Jennifer Crumbley told us whose gun that was,” noting that the social media post Jennifer Crumbley made calling the gun her son’s Christmas present.

“That weapon is not just that weapon: It is the defendant’s son’s gun,” McDonald said. “It was gifted to him and not only was it gifted to him, she bragged about it on social media before the shooting.”

She reminded jurors of video they saw of Ethan Crumbley at the gun range, training.

“We actually saw the last day he was practicing to kill four of his classmates,” McDonald said, “and there was only one person with him, ladies and gentlemen, and her name is Jennifer Crumbley.”

“It’s about what she knew and what she didn’t say.”

She also talked about photos of Jennifer Crumbley’s home that were shown to the jury.

“I want to make it really clear, Jennifer Crumbley is not being charged with involuntary manslaughter because she has a dirty house. That’s absurd,” she said.

Still, “there was barely a place for him to sleep,” McDonald said of Ethan Crumbley, adding that the testimony showed he had no one left in his life after his friend left. “When I see those photos what I think is, yeah, two rooms that were completely filthy, dusty, covered with clothes everywhere, but then I think, what? That is where he spent 99% of his time.”

She said the search warrant photos were also shown so jurors could see where the guns were stored. Two other firearms were in a gun safe, but not the 9mm Sig Sauer. Where was it?

“We know there was a box on the bed and the ammunition next to it,” she said.

'Jennifer Crumbley didn't hug her son'

McDonald talked about the testimony from two school officials who were in the meeting with James and Jennifer Crumbley about a troubling drawing her son had made on the day of the shooting.

“I’m going to tell you right now that this is not an argument that the school did everything they should have done. I’m not going to say that to you,” McDonald said. “I’m not going to tell you that I like everything they testified to. I’m not going to tell you that I think it was OK they didn’t look in the backpack. I don’t think it was. But this is about Jennifer Crumbley’s actions and any attempt to make it about what these two individuals did or didn’t do, like it or not, who did not have any of the information that was so jarring, it’s about what she knew and what she didn’t say.”

McDonald asked the jury to consider the testimony of school counselor Shawn Hopkins, who said he called the parents to the school because he was concerned about the drawing their son had made in math class. Hopkins had sent the drawing to the mother, who then texted her husband: "EMERGENCY."

McDonald urged the jury to consider that reaction, arguing it shows the mom knew this was a serious matter.

McDonald next urged the jury to pay close attention to what happened inside the school counselor's office when the parents arrived.

"Jennifer Crumbley didn't hug her son," McDonald said. "Jennifer Crumbley didn't engage with her son at all in the entire 11 minutes she was there."

McDonald argued Crumbley never intended to stay long at the school, given she had told her boss she'd be back by 12 or 12:30.

She also urged jurors to remember what Hopkins told them — "that he felt compassion for the shooter." That's why, she argues, Hopkins let the shooter stay in school: He didn't want him to go home and be alone.

McDonald portrayed Jennifer Crumbley as a distant and cold mother, telling the jury this is how the school meeting ended:

"She did not hug him goodbye ... And we know why. She was mad. She was mad at him. She thought this was a discipline thing and she was very angry," McDonald said.

McDonald also reminded jurors about the testimony of Dean of Students Nicholas Ejak, who was in the counselor's office with the parents and the shooter that day. He testified that the mother seemed irritated about being called to the school, and abruptly ended the  meeting, saying "Are we done here?"

McDonald then walked the jury through a timeline, and asked them to remember the parents' actions in the hours after the shooting, specifically the comment they made to police about the murder weapon.

When police asked the parents where the gun was located in their house prior to their son using it, Jennifer Crumbley said: "It was hidden."

McDonald also talked to jurors about one of the key elements that must be proven in this case: foreseeability.

The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the parents could "reasonably foresee" that their son was going to shoot up his school, and had a duty to exercise "ordinary care" to protect the students from their son.

This, she said, can be proven in the parents' actions in the counselor's office on the morning of the shooting.

“She could have told the school we gifted him a gun. She could have told him we care about you. We love you,” McDonald said.

“Ordinary care would include all of those things. And the tragic thing is that none of it was hard … It could have saved Hana, and Tate, and Madisyn and Justin,” McDonald said, referring to murder victims Hana St. Juliana, 14; Tate Myre, 16; Madisyn Baldwin, 17, and Justin Shilling, 17.

“That worksheet right there is reasonable foreseeability,” McDonald said. “It’s not just any gun — it’s the gun she just gave him. ...

“'The thoughts won’t stop. Help  me' … that is foreseeability. He’s telling in that drawing, this is the gun that was purchased for me. ‘Help me. Blood everywhere. The world is dead. ‘”

"She did not give him the help he wanted," McDonald said. "She walked out of the school that day, and she knew something bad might happen."

McDonald said Jennifer Crumbley knew her son was distraught the night before the school shooting, knew it was unusual for her son to say “I love you,” which he did in a text on the day of the shooting, and that his only friend had left.

“Even now she told you she wouldn’t do anything different,” McDonald said, adding Jennifer Crumbley also said she doesn’t think of herself as a victim but has lost everything.

McDonald talked about what Jennifer Crumbley did after the shooting, saying she ran and started deleting messages.

“Why is a mother whose son just killed four people thinking about deleting her text messages?” McDonald asked. “Why is she saying things that are not true about her son? ... Why does she care about her horse lesson? Why does she care about any of these things? Because she knew she did something wrong.”

She said Jennifer Crumbley “wants you to believe she’s somebody she’s not."

“She is not somebody that used ordinary care to prevent what was foreseeable, reasonably foreseeable, that could have happened. Injury or death, and it did.”

McDonald said what's especially egregious about Jennifer Crumbley is her reflection on what happened: She wouldn't have done anything differently. That's what Jennifer Crumbley told jurors Thursday when her lawyer asked her if she regretted any of her actions. But she did say if she could, she would change one thing: "I wish he would have killed us instead."

McDonald focused on what Crumbley could have done — tiny things that could have saved the lives of her son’s classmates, she said.

Worse, McDonald said, is she doesn't regret it.

"It's a rare case. It takes some really egregious facts. It takes the unthinkable,” McDonald said. “And she has done the unthinkable. And because of that four kids have died."

Cross-examination: 'You could have been with him'

Keast asked Jennifer Crumbley about Nov. 29, 2021, the night before the shooting. She testified that she and her husband had gotten in a fight with her son about his grades. He asked her if she locked her son out of the house. She said she did not, but he walked out of the house and she agreed that he had taken his phone.

Keast said that on that night, Ethan Crumbley filmed a 19-minute video while he was outside describing what he was going to do the next day.

Jennifer Crumbley asked what time that was and Keast said “10 o’clock.”

“I don’t know if he got it back,” she said, adding that they also told him he couldn't go to the shooting range for a time.

Under questioning by the prosecution, she agreed nothing was stopping her from taking him home on the day of the shooting.

“And on November the 30^th of 2021 at 12:51 p.m., you could have been with him,” Keast said, referring to the time the shooting in the school began.

“I could have, yes,” she said.

“And you didn’t,” Keast said.

Jennifer Crumbley said no.

What Jennifer Crumbley talked about in jail phone calls

Keast said he wanted to talk with Jennifer Crumbley about and her priorities from the time she was arrested. Jennifer Crumbley has been jailed since she was arrested. Keast said her phone calls were recorded.

Keast said, “Your priority on your first phone call,” on Dec. 4, 2021, was her animals and cash. Crumbley didn’t deny that.

“Do you deny that it wasn’t until 10 days later and 14 calls later that you even mentioned your son?” Keast said.

Jennifer Crumbley said she “was under the impression that I couldn’t mention him because I could get flagged at the jail.” She agreed she mentioned him in later conversations and Keast cited a later call where she said he “just needs to man up.” Jennifer Crumbley said she didn’t remember that, but “it sounds like something I would say.”

Prosecutors played audio from calls between Jennifer Crumbley and her father in which she discusses setting up a GoFundMe to pay for the board of her horses.

Keast then asked her about her actions after learning she was going to be charged, including a text she sent to her lover:

"We're F-----."

Correct, Crumbley said matter of factly, showing no emotion as she answered the prosecutor's questions.

Keast asked about the four Xanax that Crumbley said she took the night before she and her husband were arrested, and her testimony that she and her husband were asleep when officers showed up with guns drawn.

Crumbley said yes, that's what happened.

Keast challenged her testimony, citing text messages from their lawyers: "When you can, we would like for you to call us."

She responded: "Thank you. Shannon is calling you shortly."

Smith texted her that she and another lawyer were coming to get the Crumbleys the following morning to take them to court for arraignment.

"Okay, we'll be waiting," she texted her lawyer that night.

Jennifer Crumbley said her husband's prepaid phone had broken and they were both using the same phone at that point.

An 11:14 p.m. text read: "Think we were found. ... We might have been found. Laying low."

Smith responded: "Oh shit."

Smith has long maintained that her client was not on the run, but was planning on turning herself in at court the following morning, and that her client had set her cellphone alarm for 6 a.m. the following morning to wake up for her arraignment.

Jurors saw images of her cellphone alarm set at that time.

'It just looked like a gun to me'

Keast asked about the troubling drawing her son made in math class on the morning of the shooting — the one depicting a gun, a bleeding person and the words, "The Thoughts Won't stop help me."

"I honestly thought the guy in the picture" was wearing a cape, Crumbley testified.

What about the gun? the prosecutor asked.

"It just looked like a gun to me,"  she testified.

What about "The Thoughts Won't stop, Help me"? the prosecutor continued.

"Yes, that was concerning," she testified.

Later in her testimony, Keast asked her why she never told school officials about the gun that her husband and son had bought just four days earlier.

"I didn't think it was relevant,"  Crumbley testified.

Keast then asked her why she texted "EMERGENCY" to her husband when she saw those words. And why her husband texted back, after seeing the drawing: "WTF, oh my god."

Keast is trying to show that the Crumbleys were alarmed by the note, should have known better than to leave their son in school that day and should have disclosed to school officials that they had gifted their son a gun.

This is a crucial detail in the case, because to prove involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that there was a "reasonable foreseeability" by the parents that their son would carry out a school shooting, given what they knew about him.

Jennifer Crumbley testified that she never saw any signs that her son would commit a school shooting. She said he had no disciplinary issues, had never been in trouble at school and led a pretty normal family life of going on vacations with his family, camping, hiking and fishing or playing board games with his best friend, who also went on family trips with the Crumbleys.

Jennifer Crumbley testified that school officials gave her son the option of staying in school or going home, and told the family their son posed no safety risk to the school. Her son wanted to stay in school, she said, so the parents left him there and returned to their jobs.

School officials have corroborated this narrative, though they said they initially expected that the parents would take him home. Instead, the officials testified, the Crumbleys said they needed to return to their jobs, and vowed to get Ethan Crumbley help within 48 hours, so the school thought it was in the teen's best interest to stay in class.

Crumbley testified that she never "refused" to bring him home, and that if he wanted to go home she would have taken him.

Keast also asked Jennifer Crumbley if her son had a consistent desire to obtain a weapon and she said she knew that her son and husband constantly talked about it.

Crumbley said she was not along on Nov. 26, 2021, when her husband and son went to the firearms store and bought the 9mm gun that was ultimately used in the school shooting.

“I did not know they were going to the gun store that day, no,” she testified.

Under questioning by the prosecution, she said she went to the gun range with her son.

“He knew how to use the gun,” Keast said.

“Yes, he did,” Jennifer Crumbley said.

“In fact, he showed you how to use the gun,” Keast said.

She agreed.

Citing Facebook messages between Jennifer and James Crumbley, Keast said to her: “It’s pretty clear you didn’t trust James with much.

“You didn’t trust him to get out of bed on time,” Keast said.

“Correct,” she testified.

“You didn’t trust him to cut the grass when it was time to cut the grass,” Keast said.

“He would cut the grass when it got to a length I didn’t like,” she said.

“You didn’t trust him to update you on his whereabouts,” Keast said.

“There’s a reason behind that,” she said.

“You didn’t trust him to not turn off or turn on the Ring camera in your home,” Keast said.

“Correct,” she said.

“You didn’t trust him to keep track of your son,” Keast said.

Jennifer Crumbley said she trusted her husband to keep track of her son.

Keast said she didn’t trust him to hold down a job, to which she responded that her husband: “had a hard time holding down one after COVID.” She agreed that in the messages she is often asking him about work and what he’s doing to obtain a job.

“But this is the person you entrusted with a deadly weapon,” Keast said.

“I did,” she said.

Prosecution asks about affair, how the mother spent her time

Keast started his cross-examination, stating: "Mrs. Crumbley, I want to talk to you about your vigilance as a parent."

Keast then asked her if she saw herself as a "hypervigilant parent" as her lawyer said.

"Yes," she said.

He then asked about her outside interests and the time she spent and costs.

She agreed that she "probably" spent $20,000 a year on horses and said she worked double shifts on Saturdays on ski patrol.

Keast asked her about her affair with Brian Meloche.

"It wasn't just weekdays was it?" Keast asked, noting that Crumbley on Thursday said she met Meloche once a week.

"No," she said, conceding he joined her on some business trips.

He then asked her about an app on her phone called AdultFriendFinder, citing messages from her in 2021, and asked her if she and her ex-lover arranged to be with other couples.

On Nov. 28,  2021, Keast said, she was arranging a meetup, arguing that it took time to set up meets with someone else.

Crumbley said it didn't take that much time.

Keast then asked her about text messages from her son that he was seeing demons throwing bowls, and asking her to text him back.

Crumbley previously testified that her son was just "messing around" in those texts and long joked about ghosts being in the house — even nicknaming a house ghost as "Veronica" and "Boris Johnson."

Keast asked her about the gun that she and her husband "gifted their son."

"Define gifted," she said, maintaining the gun was to be used only by her son at a shooting range with his dad, and that the family did shooting activities together.

"We didn't just hand him a gun, as 'here you go son,'" she testified on cross-examination.

Prosecutors seek review of Crumbley texts with lawyers

The start of testimony on Friday was delayed by a request by the prosecution for Judge Cheryl Matthews to review potential text messages between Jennifer Crumbley and her attorney Smith at the time when authorities alleged the Crumbleys were on the run.

David Williams, chief assistant Oakland County prosecutor, said: “The issue of flight has been important from the start of this case; it was part of a bond motion. The allegation has always been by the prosecution that the defendant was fleeing from prosecution, that in contrast to the public statements by her attorney that she was not returning and not turning herself in.”

He told Matthews that Jennifer Crumbley waived her right to attorney-client privilege when she testified on Thursday that she was in touch with her attorney at that time, taking the advice to turn themselves in and waiting on her attorney’s direction.

“She’s waived her privilege,” Williams said. “She cannot use that as a sword to present in her case as a defense to flight and then say you can’t see those messages.”

Smith said she had not seen the messages, doesn’t have them on her phone and said her client did not believe her client waived her attorney-client privilege. She said: “I don’t know if it’s between me and my client. It says ‘Shannon Mariell,’” Smith said, which are the first names of James and Jennifer Crumbley’s attorneys. Smith said that, at the time, she and Mariell Lehman were both representing the couple.

After a break, Matthews said she had done research on the matter and agreed to do the review, which is limited to text messages to determine if there is a reference to flight, but said she was reluctant to do so.

“I think that the privilege that the defendant holds is her absolute privilege and protects her constitutional rights so I think this is a very serious issue and reviewing these records could set a very dangerous precedent,” Matthews said. “However, I also note that the prosecution is requesting that the review be for a limited purpose on the issue of flight and not on the issue of anything else.”

Matthews said she thought if she “didn’t review these texts that it could be potentially unfair to the claimant, that being the prosecutor on this limited issue.”

After reviewing the messages, Matthews said she made a copy for Smith, who did not object to anything in the texts. Matthews handed a copy of the messages to the prosecution. Prosecutors began reviewing them at their table, then stepped out of the courtroom.

Jennifer Crumbley took the stand as the lawyers returned to court.

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Watch replay: Testimony Jennifer Crumbley involuntary manslaughter trial