In a tactic that irked prosecutors, James Crumbley’s attorney asked prospective jurors questions related to key issues in the landmark case trying to hold a father accountable for a deadly school shooting by his son.
On the first day of jury selection in Crumbley’s manslaughter trial, defense attorney Mariel Lehmann addressed perhaps the most damning allegation in the case: that her client gave her troubled son a gun — the same weapon the teenager used killed four students at an Oxford high school in 2021.
To attack this narrative, Lehmann asked numerous prospective jurors the following questions:
If a parent buys a car for their teenager and tells the child and their friends that they just gave their child a car, does that mean the child really owns it or the parents? Multiple jurors said they did just that – gifted cars to their teenagers – but they were really the owners and could take the keys away whenever they saw fit.
Lehman also focused on mental illness and asked prospective jurors to consider whether it’s easy to tell if someone is depressed or suffering from a mental illness, or can people who struggle with such issues, especially teenagers, hide these things? Many people said that such diseases can be hard to spot.
Are you a perfect parent?
Lehman also focuses on an issue that has garnered international attention: parenthood.
She asked 15 prospective jurors sitting in the box how many of them with children thought they were perfect parents.
No hand was raised.
She also asked how many believed that they, as parents, or that their parents did their best, even when they made mistakes.
Everyone’s hand went up.
Lehman also addressed the question of what it means to intentionally give someone access to something versus passive access. Prosecutors say James Crumbley gave his son easy access to the gun, although the father denies this, saying it was hidden unloaded in a cupboard and the bullets were stored in a separate drawer.
So Lehman asked prospective jurors to weigh in on what it means to give someone access to something and to offer their opinion on what it means to have a properly stored gun.
The prosecutor objects to the defense’s questions to potential jurors
Answers varied, with some saying a gun should always be locked in a safe, although many said they wouldn’t necessarily think a gun was dangerously stored if a person hid it somewhere, and that they would need to know more about him.
It was during this line of questioning about access that Lehman drew the ire of Oakland County District Attorney Karen McDonald. Lehmann asked a prospective juror if a corkscrew was hidden in a drawer in his house and someone found it and used it to hurt someone, would he consider that he was giving access to the corkscrew?
MacDonald objected, arguing that Lehman was going too much into the details of the case and that was not appropriate during jury selection.
Lehman argued that this was a relevant and fair question, and continued to ask it of others, and would again tease MacDonald with another line of questioning.
Lehmann asked the panel if they could push past any emotions they might have after seeing disturbing images during the trial, such as video of the school shooter going on a rampage.
She went on to claim that James Crumbley was never in the building at the time of the shooting and that what happened during the massacre was not what he was accused of, but that his son was convicted of the murders – not her client.
MacDonald countered that Crumbley was actually inside the building the morning before the shooting when he was called because of a disturbing drawing his son had made of a gun and the words, “The thoughts won’t stop, Help me.”
Lehmann argued that the prosecutor overstepped the mark in disclosing actual details of the case. The judge cut off the line of questioning.
Who was on the first set of prospective jurors
Of the 15 people questioned at the lodge on Tuesday, six had guns in their homes, although one of those people was acquitted by prosecutors later in the day. He was a father of eight who said he wasn’t sure he would want someone with his mindset sitting on a jury to try him or a loved one accused of a crime.
The group of 15 also includes a mother who does not own a TV and says she knows nothing about the case; a man whose cousin was killed by her mentally ill son; and a 29-year-old man who once served as a juror in a murder case and acquitted the defendant, concluding that the killing was in self-defense.
Anything can be excused, as both sides have eight peremptory challenges to dismiss any prospective juror for any reason. The defense did not use any challenges on Tuesday. The prosecution uses one.
A panel of 300 prospective jurors was called for this case. So far, 50 have been summoned to the courtroom.
James Crumbley is the third and final member of his family to stand trial in the shooting on Nov. 30, 2021. Students Tate Myre, 16; Hannah St. Juliana, 14; Madisyn Baldwin, 17, and Justin Schilling, 17, were killed and seven others, including a teacher, were injured.
Ethan Crumbley, who was 15 at the time of the shooting, pleaded guilty to all charges against him and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
His mother, Jennifer Crumbley, was convicted last month on four counts of involuntary manslaughter and faces sentencing on April 9.
Contact Tressa Baldas: [email protected]
