Oakland County’s Sixth Judicial Court issued a rare public response after a complaint was filed by Jennifer Crumbley’s attorney.
James and Jennifer Crumbley were convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with their son’s actions in the Oxford High School Shooting on Nov. 30, 2021, which left four students -- 14-year-old Hana St. Juliana; 16-year-old Tate Myre; 17-year-old Madisyn Baldwin; and 17-year-old Justin Shilling -- dead and seven others injured.
Recommended Videos
Both were sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison and have filed motions requesting new trials.
Jennifer Crumbley’s attorney, Michael Dezsi, recently filed a complaint claiming that the court is delaying her right to appeal her conviction.
Related -- Judge hears arguments about proffer agreements as Jennifer Crumbley seeks new trial. What to know
This prompted a rare public response from the court, in which reasons for the delay were explained.
“Normally, the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court does not comment on pending litigation. The Court breaks with this practice to provide the following clarification on the pending motions filed by Mr. and Mrs. Crumbley.
The procedural and substantive complexity of the cases involving Defendants Jennifer and James Crumbley involve novel issues of law and fact. The co-defendants’ individual motions were filed on different dates and, subsequently, oral arguments were conducted on separate dates. In recognition of both Defendants’ Constitutional due process rights, Judge Matthews intends to issue separate written opinions on the same date. This is both legally founded and deliberate and will avoid prejudice to either party.”
Sixth Judicial Circuit Court
This comes after the attorneys for Jennifer and James Crumbley filed separate motions requesting new trials due to the alleged discovery violations with the proffer agreements that were made between the prosecution and two school employees.
Previous Coverage -- Oxford counselor, admin have proffer agreements with prosecutors: What that means
These agreements were made with Nick Ejak, the former dean of students at Oxford High School, and Shawn Hopkins, the former counselor at Oxford High School.
The attorneys claim that these agreements were a form of immunity that would have needed to be disclosed, while the prosecution said the agreements were made to get truthful information from the men under the promise that they wouldn’t use the information if charges were brought later on, but it wasn’t immunity.
Related -- James Crumbley’s attorney urges judge to grant new trial -- what to know
Matthews heard arguments from Dezsi on Jan. 31 and from James Crumbley’s attorney, Alona Sharon, on April 11.
During both hearings, Matthews said she was likely in agreement about there being a discovery violation.
Matthews previously said that she was waiting until after James Crumbley’s hearing to decide on Jennifer Crumbley’s hearing.
Now we know that the judge intends to release her responses on the same day, according to the statement from the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court.