AMANDA GONZALEZ—On February 6, 2024, a jury in Pontiac, Michigan made a decision that may alter the way prosecutors in the United States handle mass attacks committed by minors. After eleven hours of deliberation, the Michigan jury found Jennifer Crumbley, mother of Ethan Crumbley, guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter. This conviction was based on Ms. Crumbley’s reckless negligence surrounding the school shooting committed by her son, Ethan Crumbley. This conviction marks the first time a parent in the United States has been held responsible for the mass attack committed by their child.
The trial concerned a mass shooting that took place on November 30, 2021 at Oxford High School in Oxford Township, Michigan. Ethan Crumbley, age fifteen at the time, fired a semi-automatic handgun that resulted in the death of four students and injury of seven other people. Nearly a year after the attack, Ethan Crumbley pled guilty to all twenty-four charges against him, including charges of terrorism and first-degree murder. However, Oakland County prosecuting attorney Karen McDonald did not limit the charges solely to Ethan Crumbley. About a month after the attack, James and Jennifer Crumbley were charged with involuntary manslaughter based on their negligence surrounding the attacks. This was the first time prosecutors sought to pin responsibility for a fatal school shooting on the parents of the shooter in addition to the shooter himself.
During the trial, the prosecution presented facts that highlighted Jennifer Crumbley’s culpability in the mass murder. These facts included (1) Ms. Crumbley’s failure to act on troubling text messages written by the minor, (2) Ms. Crumbley’s ignorance of the minor’s violent drawings, and (3) Ms. Crumbley’s failure to secure mental health counseling for the minor after his own request. The government not only emphasized Jennifer Crumbley’s failures to prevent the attack from taking place, but also presented evidence of her actions that may have aided in the attack. Most notably, prosecutors focused on the minor’s accessibility to the firearm. The firearm was purchased by Jennifer Crumbley’s husband, and she had also taken the minor to a shooting range days before the attack.
This conviction sets a precedent for cases concerning parental responsibility in a mass shooting committed by a minor. A variety of states have parental responsibility laws that impose civil or criminal liability on parents for the actions of their children. In a similar vein, around twenty-six (26) states have secure storage laws that require gun owners to lock up their firearms. However, these laws have never resulted in charges as severe as Ms. Crumbley’s.
The first-of-its-kind decision has been both celebrated and criticized. Gun control advocates have welcomed the decision, hoping that it sends a message to gun owners who fail to safely secure their firearms. Kris Brown, president of the nonprofit organization Brady: United Against Gun Violence, emphasized that the conviction “sends a powerful message to parents and other parties that they can be responsible for their actions that foreseeably contribute to gun violence even if they don’t pull the trigger.” Parents of school shooting victims have expressed similar views, noting that the Crumbley case has similarities to their children’s and hoping this case law will prevent other individuals from suffering the same fate.
Conversely, some legal scholars worry about the consequences of the conviction. Specifically, some are worried about the lengths prosecutors will go to convict parents and the deviation from the bedrock principle that individuals cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Criticisms also include the fear that prosecutors will use this precedent to enact maximum punishment on individuals that would lead to unjust outcomes, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities. Josie Duffy Rice, a journalist who covers the criminal justice system, sees the verdict of the case as an illogical decision. She stated, “They tried Ethan Crumbley as an adult. [] And then that same prosecutor’s office prosecuted the mother and said you should have taken better care of him because he was a child.”
Many individuals emphasize that the case is a unique one, and the same result may not be achieved in cases with a different set of facts. Ekow Yankah, professor of law at the University of Michigan, emphasized that the case’s verdict goes against core legal principles, “but the facts are so damning [] that it almost felt like the case was meant to push the legal principle to its limit.” This emphasis on the case’s uniqueness lessens the claim that the conviction will result in significant change.
The state of Michigan has a maximum term of fifteen years for involuntary manslaughter. Oakland County prosecutors have not stated whether they will seek consecutive sentences on the four convictions. Ms. Crumbley’s husband will soon face his own trial. He has sought to change the venue of his trial after his wife’s conviction.
