PONTIAC, Mich. — An Oakland County judge has again asserted that she believes prosecutors improperly failed to disclose agreements made with two Oxford High School officials shortly after a 2021 mass shooting, but she has not made a decision on what that means for the shooter's parents.

Both James and Jennifer Crumbley, parents of Oxford High School shooter Ethan Crumbley, this year filed requests for a new trial or for a dismissal of their convictions on four counts of involuntary manslaughter.

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Matthews heard arguments on Jennifer's motion Jan. 31, and Friday heard arguments about James' motion. James Crumbley argued that prosecutors failed to disclose so-called proffer agreements made with Oxford High School counselor Shawn Hopkins and former Dean of Students Nick Ejak, that Matthews did not properly question the shooter about his invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination and that James Crumbley did not have a legal duty to protect Oxford students.

The proffer agreements noted that prosecutors would consider the statements made by Ejak and Hopkins during meetings with prosecutors "in deciding how to resolve this investigation as it relates to your client and any charges pending against your client being prosecuted by this office." James Crumbley's attorney, Alona Sharon, argued this was a promise of immunity, though prosecutors said it was not.

Matthews indicated Friday she would not likely have a decision on James' motion nor on the proffer agreement issue that she has not ruled on in Jennifer's case. Matthews ruled against Jennifer Crumbley on every other aspect, including her claim that she did not have a legal duty to protect Oxford students. Matthews said she did not think it proper to rule on the proffer issue in Jennifer Crumbley's case before hearing arguments in the case of James Crumbley.

James Crumbley did not appear in court Friday for his motion hearing, and Sharon said he did not wish to be brought to Pontiac for the case.

At the start of the hearing Friday, Matthews asked Sharon, "What if I agree the prosecution violated the rules in regards to discovery? ... What is the remedy if there's a violation of the rules of discovery?" She said she "likely" thinks that prosecutors not giving defense the proffer agreements was a discovery violation.

Matthews said in January during Jennifer Crumbley's motion hearing that she was "very, very" concerned about the possibility of a discovery violation as it relates to the proffer agreements.

Sharon said a new trial would be the only proper remedy for James Crumbley, the only way to ensure he had a fair trial. He was unable to properly question Hopkins and Ejak about their possible biases and motive for testifying without the knowledge of the proffer agreements, Sharon said.

"If the violation is intentional, if there is bad faith behind the violation for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage, a severe sanction is warranted," Sharon said. "(James Crumbley) is seeking the one and only sanction that can right the wrong, that can make him whole, which is a new trial."

Prosecutors have argued that they had no duty to disclose the proffer agreements. Assistant Prosecutor Joseph Shada wrote in a response to James Crumbley's motion that the agreements allowed prosecutors to meet with Ejak and Hopkins to evaluate them as potential witnesses. This is a standard part of trial preparation, he wrote, and was created at the request of their attorneys. They do not grant immunity, they do not require testimony and they do not restrict prosecutors' ability to bring charges against Ejak and Hopkins in the future.

On Friday, Matthews asked Assistant Prosecutor Marc Keast if he agreed that prosecutors have a duty to disclose relevant and exculpatory evidence to the defendant, and Keast said he did.

"Wasn't the defendant deprived of a robust cross-examination?" Matthews asked.

"No," Keast said. Several minutes later, he said he did not "want to leave the court with the impression that there was an effort to hide evidence or gain an unfair advantage."

"OK, well, you're not telling me it was a boo boo, that it was a willful nondisclosure?" Matthews asked. "You guys decided you didn't have to turn it over."

"When it was decided to have them testify for the prosecution in 2024, we should have gone back and identified that as a statement under the court rule (that should have been disclosed)," Keast said. "That was a mistake and was made without malice."

On the issue of whether Matthews properly questioned the shooter to see if he understood his Fifth Amendment rights and was properly invoking them, which Sharon claimed Matthews had not done, Matthews maintained there was no question that the shooter lawfully invoked his right.

Matthews said the first time Jennifer Crumbley's attorney Shannon Smith brought up her desire to call the shooter as a witness, she was shocked.

"Everyone at that time truly believed that calling the shooter as a witness would be tantamount to dropping a bomb in the middle of the courtroom," Matthews said.

The shooter did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right until the day before Jennifer Crumbley's trial began in January 2024.

Sharon also criticized prosecutors for focusing less on the legal arguments and their alleged misconduct and more on the horrific murders.

"It is a very blatant attempt to distract the court and the public from how they failed to give James Crumbley a fair trial," Sharon said. "Our rules and the court's obligation to ensure due process and a fair trial and a full and fair cross-examination cannot bend to emotion, your honor. If it does, then our justice system has no integrity, and the rules mean nothing, and the Constitution means nothing."

Keast said he takes issue with any allegations that the prosecutor's office prosecutes for headlines, though Sharon did not accuse him of this.

"James Crumbley was convicted because of the choices he made," Keast said. "It was James Crumbley's gross negligence, it was James Crumbley's causation in this foreseeability that was the reason for his conviction."

Crumbley was convicted in March 2024 of four counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with his son Ethan's Nov. 30, 2021, mass shooting at Oxford High School, which left four students — Hana St. Juliana, 14; Justin Shilling, 17; Tate Myre, 16; and Madisyn Baldwin, 16 — dead and six others and a teacher injured. Jennifer Crumbley, was convicted by a separate jury.

Crumbley's conviction marked the second time in the United States a parent was convicted of manslaughter for a mass shooting carried out by his or her child; the first was of his wife, Jennifer. Matthews sentenced them both to 10-15 years in prison.

Prosecutors said Crumbley acted in a grossly negligent way in storing a gun and ammunition where his son could access it and that he failed to control his child to keep him from harming others.

________

©2025 The Detroit News. Visit detroitnews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.