Michigan mom, Jennifer Crumbly, is currently facing an involuntary manslaughter trial in connection with the Oxford High School shooting. As the trial enters its final stages, the prosecution presented their closing arguments, while the defense rested their case after calling Crumbly as their only witness.
The defense's decision not to call any additional witnesses may suggest a difference of opinion between Crumbly and her attorney. Although her parents were listed as potential witnesses, they were not called to testify in the trial. The prosecution's cross-examination of Crumbly focused on her son's mental health and how he obtained the weapon used in the shooting.
The cross-examination appeared relatively short, contrary to expectations of a more thorough examination. The prosecution's closing argument is expected to tie together the points raised during the cross-examination to present a strong case to the jury. The prosecution will be presenting two main theories to the jury—gross negligence and failure to perform a legal duty. The parents had a legal obligation to their child and the community, and the prosecution argues that their negligence ultimately resulted in the tragic events at Oxford High School.
During the cross-examination, it was established that Crumbly did not deny that the gun used in the shooting was purchased and gifted to their son by her and her husband. She clarified that it was intended for use at a shooting range and that the family went together on a trip to test the firearm.
The prosecution hinges on proving that Jennifer Crumbly's actions and negligence directly caused the death of the four students. The defense, in response, aims to establish that the blame should not solely rest on her shoulders. They argue that the school also had a responsibility to address the concerning behavior exhibited by Crumbly's son and failed to take necessary actions.
Observers note that the cross-examination appeared relatively brief, leading to speculation that both sides were satisfied with the information garnered during the testimonies. Some legal experts have expressed surprise at the inclusion of certain details unrelated to the case, such as suggesting Crumbly's involvement in extramarital activities. They consider it potentially appealable.
Regarding the defense's decision to have Crumbly as their sole witness, it is a common tactic when the defendant does not bear the burden of proof. The defense aims to highlight the lack of evidence indicating her son's potential for violence and emphasize that there was no reason for her to suspect his actions.
Now, it is up to the jury to assess the credibility of the testimonies and determine whether Jennifer Crumbly is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The jury will consider the arguments presented by both sides and weigh the evidence against the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial continues as the jury begins deliberations.
