OXFORD, Mich. – Jennifer and James Crumbley, the parents of the Oxford High School shooter, will not receive new trials, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews denied their requests for new trials on Wednesday, June 11, 2025.
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald issued the following statement following the decision:
Today, Judge Cheryl Matthews upheld the guilty verdicts of James and Jennifer Crumbley and denied their requests for new trials. These cases have always been about just one thing: justice for Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, Hana St. Juliana, Justin Shilling, and the other Oxford victims. Judge Matthews’ ruling makes clear that no issue raised by the defense affected the trial or the jury’s verdict.
Now that the juries’ verdicts have been reviewed and upheld, it is time to turn our attention away from the Crumbleys and refocus on the Oxford victims. The bottom line is both James and Jennifer Crumbley were convicted by juries of their peers after receiving a fair trial.
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald
Jennifer Crumbley’s attorney, Michael Dezsi, released the following statement after the decision:
After a more than six-month delay, the court finally issued a decision denying Jennifer Crumbley’s motion for acquittal or new trial. So the prosecution intentionally cheated and violated the court rules, but they didn’t cheat hard enough for the court to do anything about it. Jennifer Crumbley was never going to get a fair trial in Oakland County as demonstrated by the court’s actions in the last six months, and its decision finding the prosecutor’s actions “disturbing” but harmless should shock the public. What a hypocritical example of justice.
I will immediately appeal to a higher court the denial of Jennifer Crumbley’s motion for bond pending appeal. The court’s decision today was only the first step in a lengthy appeal process that is only now just getting started. I am confident that a higher court will find the prosecutor’s actions were not only disturbing but also grounds to overturn Jennifer Crumbley’s conviction. This legal battle is just starting.
Michael Dezsi, Jennifer Crumbley's attorney
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’ decision comes after she heard arguments for new trials from Jennifer Crumbley’s attorney, Michael Dezsi, on Jan. 31, and James Crumbley’s attorney, Alona Sharon, on April 11, regarding proffer agreements that were made between the prosecutor’s office 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.
Related -- Judge hears arguments about proffer agreements as Jennifer Crumbley seeks new trial. What to know
The attorneys claimed 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.
During both hearings, Matthews had said she was likely in agreement about there being a discovery violation. Despite having concerns about the suppression of the agreements, it wasn’t enough for her to grant the parents new trials, according to the court ruling.
In her response to Jennifer Crumbley’s request, Matthews said the following:
“In order for the Defendant to demonstrate that the Proffer Agreements were material, she would have to show that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. Defendant has not shown that the suppressed Proffer Agreements were material. Despite the suppressed evidence, Defendant Jennifer Crumbley received a trial and verdict worthy of confidence based on the cumulative effect of the significant evidence against her.”
Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews (Response to Jennifer Crumbley)
In response to James Crumbley’s request for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing based on the claim that he received ineffective counsel during his trial, Matthews said:
“The Court finds that Defendant’s positions as discussed herein are meritless and objecting to the jury instruction would have been futile as well. The Defendant has failed to show deficient performance and the requisite resulting prejudice. The Defendant has not shown that his trial counsel was ineffective. Also, Defendant did not raise factual issues that require further development of the record. Therefore, the Court declines to conduct an evidentiary hearing pursuant to People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443 (1973).”
Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews (Response to James Crumbley)
This comes after Matthews fined Dezsi for filing an improper motion that sought to remove the Oakland County prosecutor from the case.