Cory Wilson is a criminal defence lawyer serving Calgary, Okotoks, Airdrie, Strathmore, Cochrane, Canmore, Didsbury, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Grand Prairie, and Turner Valley.

Blog Written by Simi Tiwanna

In a world where decisions carry the weight of history, one verdict has sent ripples through the fabric of American society. But what if that decision rests on the shoulders of a parent? This is the heart-wrenching dilemma facing Jennifer Crumbley, who has been found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter for the tragic events of November 30, 2021. On that fateful day, her son, Ethan Crumbley, armed with a 9mm gun, opened fire at Oxford High School, claiming the lives of four teenagers. 

Jennifer Crumbley stares down the barrel of a possible 60-year sentence for four counts of involuntary manslaughter. During the trial, prosecutors argued that she was grossly negligent and could have foreseen the violence before her son opened fire. They contended that Jennifer had a duty under Michigan law to prevent her son, then 15 years old, from harming others. She is accused of failing to secure the 9mm gun and ammunition at home and neglecting to seek help for her son’s mental health issues. 

The tragic events of November 30, 2021, have sparked discussions about the prevention of future school shootings. In finding Jennifer Crumbley guilty, there is hope that such tragedies can be avoided by holding parents accountable for their children’s actions and ensuring they take care of their children and their mental health. The question remains: Is this conviction enough to curb the epidemic of violence plaguing American Schools? 

The Tragedy of November 30, 2021: Understanding the Events at Oxford High School

Let’s hop into the DeLorean time machine and journey to the past to uncover why Michigan prosecutors decided to charge Jennifer Crumbley with four counts of involuntary manslaughter. This trip will help us understand the present circumstances more clearly. 

It started innocently enough on Black Friday 2021, when James Crumbley, Ethan’s father, bought him a gun as an early Christmas gift. On the same weekend, Jennifer Crumbley took her son to a shooting range, unknowingly contributing to a chain of events that would lead to unimaginable sorrows. 

Ethan Crumbley was known as a student with no disciplinary issues at school. However, a seemingly ordinary student raised alarms the day before as a teacher witnessed him searching  for ammunition on his phone, prompting the school to contact Jennifer. Her response to Ethan’s actions was, “Lol, I’m not mad at you. You have to learn not to get caught.” 

On the day of the incident, a disturbing drawing on Ethan’s math homework caught a teacher’s eyes: a gun pointing at the words, “The thoughts won’t stop. Help Me. The world is dead. My life is useless.” The drawing screams for help, but his parents dismiss the school’s concerns due to work commitments and decide not to take him home from school. 

Prosecutors later reveal that Ethan was fascinated with Nazi propaganda, as well as his hallucinations about demons. It was brought to attention as a journal entry stated: “ I have zero help for my mental problems and it’s causing me to shoot up the…school.” These revelations painted a picture of a troubled young man crying out for help, culminating in a horrific act of violence.  

Present Day: Understanding the case against Jennifer Crumbley

Fast forward to the present day, where we delve into the case against Jennifer Crumbley and the grave accusations levelled against her. 

The prosecutor’s argument hinges on the assertion that Jennifer was grossly negligent and could have foreseen the tragedy that unfolded. Although she didn’t pull the trigger, prosecutors contend that she negligently stored the gun and ammunition. 

Furthermore, the prosecutor took a stance that both James and Jennifer were aware of Ethan’s deteriorating mental state and the danger he posed to others. Despite this knowledge, they allowed him access to firearms, including the 9mm pistol used in the tragic act. Supporting evidence included Ethan’s journal and photographs of Jennifer being the last adult to have access to the gun after taking her son to the shooting range the weekend before the incident. 

In her defence, Jennifer claimed that her husband, James, was responsible for securely storing firearms in the family home. She also claimed that Ethan expressed anxiety and uncertainty regarding his future, which she deemed to be a typical level of concern for someone his age, not warranting psychiatric intervention. 

The jury, comprising six men and six women, including those favouring gun laws in America, pledged to set aside their opinions and impartially examine the evidence. The jury was presented with photographs of Jennifer being the last adult seen with the weapon, Ethan’s journal, in which he pleaded for help that went unheeded, and Ethan’s drawing on his math homework. 

The prosecutor’s closing statement emphasized that their decision to file unprecedented charges against Jennifer was based on the egregious facts leading up to the massacre. Jennifer owed a duty of care to ensure child’s and other’s safety. The evidence suggested that Jennifer created an environment that enabled Ethan’s violent tendencies to flourish. The prosecutor argued she could have taken minimal steps such as informing the school about the new gun purchase, checking if the gun was secure, removing Ethan from school, engaging in an open conversation with him, or taking his pleas for help seriously. School officials asserted that had they been informed about the new gun, they would not have allowed Ethan on Campus that day. 

The jury found Jennifer guilty, with a critical factor of her being the last adult to have custody of the gun. As a result, she faces up to 60 years in prison for four counts of involuntary manslaughter. She awaits sentencing, while Ethan Crumbley is serving a life sentence. James Crumbley is set to stand trial with similar charges in March 2024. 

The Legal Ripple Effect: The Legal Experts and the Public Weigh in

Should a decision of this magnitude be left to the jurors, who are laypeople often steered by emotions, or should it be the purview of judges, who weigh every legal nuance? The unprecedented case of Jennifer Crumbley has legal experts and the public alike pondering the broader implications for parental responsibility in cases of mass shootings, potentially setting off a chain reaction in the legal landscape. 

On one side of the debate, proponents of gun safety are praising the jury for their decision to find Jennifer Crumbley guilty, seen as a wake-up call. Josh Horwitz, co-director of the Centre for Gun Violence Solutions, stated that the jury represented America in this pivotal moment as arming a troubled teen is a recipe for disaster, and the parents should have foresight to prevent such tragedies. Echoing this statement, juror Alex (whose last name remains confidential) stated; “I’m not concerned with the precedent it sets, I’m just hopeful that this (School Shooting) never happens again. Furthermore, Lawyer Mark Chukow, a U.S. Attorney’s Office veteran, acknowledges the ground-breaking nature of the trial but is cautious against viewing it as a precedent-setter. He indicated that the evidence was stacked up against Jennifer Crumbley. He argues that everyday items such as a cell phone and knives don’t carry the same weight as a gun, a weapon designed for harm. Therefore, he suggests that a parent must be on heightened notice in securing firearms. 

However, not all voices in the legal community are in harmony. Detroit-based criminal defence lawyer Michael Bullotta (a former prosecutor) believes the verdict is an “overreach.” He fears it could pave the way for blaming parents for their children’s crimes due to perceived parenting failures. Bullotta stated that under Michigan Law, someone who gets convicted of involuntary manslaughter requires a proximate cause- that the defendant’s actions were sufficiently related to the cause of death. However, in this case, Jennifer was convicted for not preventing the shooting. Bullotta questions the feasibility of expecting parents to foresee such extreme acts as a mass shooting and leads ill-conceived prosecutors to delve into whether a parent should be charged whenever a school shooting occurs.

Adding another layer to the conversation, Jeffrey Swartz, a former judge and a law professor, warns that the case could provide a blueprint for prosecutors with strong anti-gun stances to bring charges in similar situations. He expresses his concern that this could lead to a slippery slope, with charges being brought even if a single life is lost, regardless of the weapon used. He painted a different scenario where a parent is fully involved in a child’s life; however, teenagers’ nature is harbouring secrets, whether innocuous or include violence. 

Amid these diverse perspectives, Ekow N. Yankah, a law professor at the University of Michigan, highlights the potential impact on non-traditional families that don’t fit the conventional mould. Albeit, he acknowledges the desperate need for solutions in a country plagued by school shootings, suggesting charging parents might be a way for prosecutors to fight back with limited legal tools. This can be seen as a desperate attempt after reviewing statistics; in 2022, there were 51 school shootings; in 2023, there were 38; and in the first month of 2024, there were 7 school shootings resulting in death and/or injury. Yankah predicts that this precedent may loom over future plea deals, disproportionately affecting minorities and single-parent households struggling to make ends meet.  

As we navigate this complex legal terrain, one thing is clear: the case of Jennifer Crumbley has opened a Pandora’s box of legal, ethical, and social questions. It beckons us to re-evaluate our approach to mental health, urging us to equip our children with the tools to express and control their emotions before it’s too late. 

Dickens Gold Chain

In the words of Charles Dickens, “That was a memorable day to me, for it made great changes in me. But, it is the same with any life. Imagine one selected day struck out of it and think how different its course would have been. Pause, you who read this, and think for a long moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation of the first link on that memorable day.” This sentiment resonates deeply with this tragic event that saw four innocent lives taken and seven others injured and resulted in Jennifer Crumbley being convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter. The prosecution argued that she could have, and should have, taken steps to prevent the November 30, 2021, tragedy. 

Conversely, the defence highlighted the inherent challenges of parenting teenagers and suggested broader societal responsibility. What if that day never happened? How might stricter gun laws, improved mental health support, and open communication have altered the course of events?  

While we cannot change the past, we can learn from it. As we navigate the complexities of life, let us focus on the present and strive to create a safer, more empathetic society. Instead of dwelling on “what ifs,” let us take proactive steps to support those in need and foster open dialogue. If you find yourself grappling with such thoughts, consider seeking guidance and support, taking one step at a time towards a brighter future. 

---

Cory Wilson is a criminal defence lawyer based in Calgary. If you have been charged with a criminal offence or are a suspect in a criminal investigation, call today for a free, no-obligation consultation.