Skip to main content

Jennifer Crumbley’s attorney fined for filing improper motion to remove prosecutor from case

Michael Dezsi gets over $1K fine for improper motion

Jennifer Crumbley, walks by her husband James Crumbley, seated, as she is escorted out of court after their sentencing, Tuesday, April 9, 2024, in Pontiac, Mich. The Crumbleys, the parents of a Michigan school shooter, were sentenced to at least 10 years in prison Tuesday for failing to take steps that could have prevented the killing of four students in 2021. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio) (Carlos Osorio, Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved)

OAKLAND COUNTY, Mich. – Jennifer Crumbley’s attorney has been fined for filing an improper motion that sought to remove the Oakland County prosecutor from the case.

Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews fined Michael Dezsi $1,657.70 because that was the cost he was reimbursed for filing the motion, according to a court document. He was ordered to pay this fine by Monday, July 14.

Recommended Videos



This comes after Matthews denied the request to remove Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald from Jennifer Crumbley’s case in April.

Dezsi released a statement Tuesday afternoon and said he has already appealed the sanction.

“I will not be bullied or intimidated into being silent about the prosecutor’s misconduct or how Jennifer Crumbley was denied a fair trial,” said Dezsi. “It is my job for which I swore an oath that I intend to honor to the fullest extent. I am confident that the court’s sanction will be thrown out by a higher court.”

Read more -- Oakland County prosecutor won’t be removed from Jennifer Crumbley’s case, judge rules

In a 178-page motion filed in March, Dezsi accused McDonald of suppressing secret proffer agreements with two key witnesses and hiring public relations firms to conduct a smear campaign against the Crumbley parents.

McDonald said the motion wasn’t “legally proper” and was “disrespectful” to the victims and the court system.

“We don’t need a smear campaign to convict Jennifer Crumbley. Her actions convicted Jennifer Crumbley. And to top it all off, she then testifies she wouldn’t change a thing,” McDonald said in March.

Jennifer Crumbley and her husband, James 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.

They were both sentenced to 10-15 years in prison.

Matthews denied the motion in April, saying the court didn’t have the jurisdiction to decide on it and claimed it was filed for improper purposes and violated court rules. The sanction was issued on June 9.

This is one of the several motions filed by Jennifer Crumbley as she seeks a new trial or to have her case dismissed.

Most recently, Dezsi filed a complaint claiming the court is delaying Jennifer Crumbley’s right to appeal her conviction, which prompted a rare public response from Oakland County’s Sixth Judicial Court.

Matthews said that since the parents have both filed motions requesting new trials, she wants to release her response to them at the same time.

Related -- Judge hears arguments about proffer agreements as Jennifer Crumbley seeks new trial. What to know

The judge had denied to hear most of Dezsi’s claims for a new trial, but she did hear arguments from him and James Crumbley’s attorney, Alona Sharon, regarding the proffer agreements that were made between the prosecution and two school employees.

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. These school employees met with the shooter and his parents the morning of the Oxford High School shooting and were considered key witnesses in the case. The defense didn’t know about the agreements until the trials were over.

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, and it wasn’t immunity.

Matthews heard arguments from Dezsi on Jan. 31 and from Sharon on April 11 about these alleged violations. During both hearings, the judge said she was likely in agreement about there being a discovery violation.


Recommended Videos