‘Trial of the Decade’ Runner Up

Some trials get high publicity because of the horror of their crimes or the famous defendants, like Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson respectively. But some have long-term legal implications and capture the national zeitgeist, like George Zimmerman.

Jennifer Crumbley, mother of a school shooter who killed four students and injured seven in the Detroit exurb of Oxford, Mich., was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter yesterday in what should be the trial of this decade. I couldn’t get enough of this case that hinged on two social issues that matter a lot to me: guns and parenting.

Prosecutors argued that Jennifer Crumbley acted in gross negligence by failing to prevent the shooting, specifically by not securing a gun from her mentally ill son despite warning signs. It was a novel theory and it’s destined for Michigan’s Supreme Court.

Here were the facts that came out in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, which prompted the public to cheer the Oakland County prosecutor for charging the parents.

• The parents bought their 15-year-old son the semiautomatic handgun he used in the shooting.
• The mother posted an image of her son’s gun to social media, describing it as a birthday present.
• The school counselor called the parents into the school after Ethan drew disturbing images indicating suicidal thoughts. They opted not to take him home because they had to work. Soon after the meeting, Ethan began his rampage.
• As details of the rampage emerged, and rumors abound of charging the parents, James and Jennifer Crumbley went on the lam. They were apprehended within 24 hours in an industrial warehouse with $6,000 in cash and burner phones.

Watching the trial, it got worse. Learning the details of their lives is like watching a “how to” on raising a school shooter. Here is a list of the best witnesses’ kickers (spoilers alert if you want to watch this disaster porn):

ATF agent Brett Brandon gives expert testimony on the guns in the Crumbley home, how to secure them and how they were found.

Detective Adam Stoyek took pictures of the Crumbley house. The front room is presentable. The rest is disgusting, particularly the son’s two bedrooms.

Detective Joe Brian testified that Jennifer Crumbley’s behavior was “atypical” of a parent whose child committed a serious crime. Videos show her indifferent and scrolling through her phone.

High-school counselor Shawn Hopkins testified that, after the shooter’s parents left their son in school following the emergency meeting, he planned to call child protective services the next day if they hadn’t arranged for professional counseling.

Jennifer Crumbley’s boss Andrew Smith testified that the company is generous with time off, especially for family needs, and she did not have to return to the office on the day of the shooting.

Horse farm owner Kira Pennock rented stables and gave riding lessons to Jennifer Crumbley, who visited her horses at least three nights per week and spent $20,000 on them in one year. Pennock also testified that Crumbley referred to her son as “her oopsie.”

Brian Meloche was Jennifer Crumbley’s lover. Her defense attorney made an unforced error that allowed into trial the fact that Jennifer Crumbley was having an affair.

Jennifer Crumbley herself was, as stated before, an immensely unlikable person. Her attorney made a huge mistake putting her on the stand. The kicker was Jennifer Crumbley saying that if she could do it all again, she wouldn’t have done anything different.

Detroit’s channel 4 did the best job publishing everything to YouTube, and you can see their full list of witnesses here.

The jurors cited as key to the verdict that Jennifer Crumbley was the last one seen with the gun.

The defense attorney, in my amateur judgment, could be described as a “bumbling” trial attorney. A bumbling attorney faced down a county prosecutor who previously won two terms as a circuit court judge, like watching USA’s Dream Team play Angola.

For the two years since the shooting, the Crumbleys were to stand trial together. At the last moment, Jennifer Crumbley decided to go it alone, probably because James bought the gun. Her strategy was to throw him and the school under the bus.

The trial of James Crumbley, the sad sack of a husband, is in March. He’s a Door Dasher and a cuck, but he may be more sympathetic than the mother. Unlike her, there is video of him crying in the aftermath. With her conviction, maybe he’ll smarten up and take a plea.

I can’t get my head around why they didn’t go for a plea deal. On average, defendants serve a third less time in prison when they own up to the crime. And if my child killed four people with a gun I bought and trained him on, while ignoring warning signs, I would want some kind of penitence. There are worse things in life. For me, living with the shame and regret without paying some kind of price would be worse.

But for somebody to be such a bad parent, they need to be deeply flawed people. To go on the lam without a plan, you need to be a little checked out of reality and very self-centered.

Watching this case felt like a slam dunk, with a uniquely unlikable mother represented by a bumbling defense attorney. The facts were so bizarre that I came across a theory that the parents wanted their son to commit suicide.

This is the first time a parent of a mass shooter has been charged for their child’s crime, and it has set a legal precedent in a country with more guns than people. Slam dunks are how precedents get set. But there will be cases that aren’t so clear. And what will some of those less obvious cases look like?

This case condemned two white suburbanites, but many if not most future convictions will fall on the commonly charged demographics.

There are valid arguments both for and against holding the parents accountable. There are anti-gun liberals who don’t want to set this precedent. There are responsible gun owners who see these parents as grossly negligent.

I don’t think either side is wrong. It’s a matter of opinion. I was happy to see her found guilty, but I see validity in the argument for restraint in setting what may be a dangerous precedent.

Like in economics, I see this case as a consequence of market distortion. The legal environment of guns in the United States is out of whack with public opinion. That distortion drives curious outcomes like this. We’ll see more oddities, like states requiring liability insurance for gun owners, as long as the distortion persists.

Why is this case only a “trial of the decade” runner up? Because it probably won’t even be trial of the year. A former president will likely stand trial this year for felonies in one state and two federal cases.

See Jennifer Crumbley’s transformation from December 2022 mugshot to February 2024 trial.