PONTIAC, Mich. — An Oakland Circuit Court judge handling the trial of the parents of the accused Oxford High School shooter is allowing Oakland Prosecutor Karen McDonald to share information with those affected by the shooting but urged her to be cautious.
In a series of orders issued without a court hearing, Judge Cheryl Matthews again cautioned the prosecutor's office about pretrial statements but stopped short of ordering them to stop emailing information to 1,800 registered victims; dismissed a prosecution witness named after a witness deadline had passed; and reminded attorneys of their duties to provide detailed information about any expert witnesses they planned to call at trial.
The orders are in response to concerns by defense attorneys for James and Jennifer Crumbley who asked Matthews to restrict or limit pretrial statements about the case and that McDonald's statements possibly violate the judge's prior instructions.
Attorneys Shannon Smith and Mariell Lehman represent James and Jennifer Crumbley, both charged with involuntary manslaughter in the Nov. 30 school shooting allegedly committed by their 16-year-old son, Ethan, who faces 24 felony counts with possible life in prison penalties.
The parents are accused of alleged gross negligence, specifically to properly supervise their son or get him mental health counseling when he complained of hallucinations. Instead the prosecutor stressed, his parents bought him a handgun as an early Christmas present and took him to a gun range to learn how to fire the weapon.
All three Crumbleys remain in the Oakland County Jail, the teenager without any bond and isolated from other adult inmates. The parents each have $500,000 bonds set after investigators said they have found them hiding in a friend's Detroit studio.
Last week, Matthews denied a separate defense motion to modify their bond and release them, stating she was not convinced they were not a flight risk.
Previously Matthews had issued a gag order on all attorneys regarding talking outside the court on the case, especially to the news media. Defense attorneys complained Prosecutor Karen McDonald made public, inappropriate comments regarding their clients that could prejudice potential jurors including a mass email sent on Sept. 15 to victims. Defense attorneys said the email "contained unnecessary extrajudicial statements that disparage the defendants."
McDonald had previously said a "trove" of evidence would show the Oxford couple, through lifestyle, choices and indifference, had created a "pathway to violence" for their son, including rebuffing his requests for mental health consultation because of hallucinations.
In response, McDonald said the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) "does not contain language that restricts the Prosecution's communications with the victims in any way and that it has not violated the Court's Order."
McDonald said she had a duty to provide victims with information about what was happening in the case moving forward. There are at least 1,800 victims registered in the case and McDonald said the most efficient way to contact them quickly was by email. Defense lawyers argued that only the families of four victims who died in the shooting should receive such emails. That defense view has enflamed many in the Oxford community.
McDonald said she believes there are more than four victims in the case — seven other victims were wounded and survived and the entire school and community remain traumatized by the event.
Matthews' order said "while she did not know the exact number of victims in the case, the Court agrees with the Prosecution there are certainly more than four."
"The Court is reluctant to restrict the Prosecution's dissemination of important factual information to victims," Matthews wrote. "However, the Prosecutor's Office should reasonably have know that an email sent to close to two thousand registered victims could be disseminated to the media ..."
Matthews said she would not sanction McDonald, as requested by attorneys, but "the Court is hopeful that the Prosecutor's Office can employ a more surgical response in the future should the need arise."
"The ability to seat an impartial jury to conduct a fair trial in this jurisdiction will be an arduous task and is an overriding and paramount concern," Matthews noted.
"Misleading statements will likely diminish that ability."
In response to related defense motions in the parents' case, Matthews also struck proposed prosecution expert Katherine Schweit from testifying at the parents' trial. Matthews agreed with defense lawyers' complaint that Schweit was named after an Aug. 29 deadline was set for an Oct. 28 evidentiary hearing. The prosecution has four other expert witnesses they plan to call.
In another order, Matthews reminded attorneys that they must provide the other side with "a curriculum vitae of an expert or party the could be called at trial with a written description of the proposed testimony of the expert, the expert's opinion and underlying basis for that opinion."
Matthews noted that contrary to the defense attorneys' objections, the prosecution has complied with the mandatory disclosures.
The teenager has a Jan. 17, 2023, trial date. The parents' trial is also expected in January at a date still to be determined.
