Michigan Court of Appeals won't hear Oxford shooter's parents' appeals separately

Kara Berg, The Detroit News on Sep 29, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

DETROIT — The Michigan Court of Appeals has rejected a request from the parents of the Oxford High School shooter to sever their appeals and have their cases heard separately.

This means Jennifer and James Crumbley’s appeals will be considered together by Michigan’s appeals courts. The appeals were consolidated to “advance the efficient administration of the appellate process,” according to the Court of Appeals.

The Crumbleys were convicted in separate trials last year of four counts of involuntary manslaughter connected to their 15-year-old son’s mass shooting at Oxford High School in November 2021 that left four students dead — Hana St. Juliana, 14; Madisyn Baldwin, 17; Tate Myre, 16; and Justin Shilling, 17 — and six others and a teacher injured. Both were sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison.

Both James and Jennifer filed motions in Oakland County Circuit Court for a new trial or an acquittal, but Judge Cheryl Matthews denied both requests. Matthews said they received fair trials, despite finding that prosecutors willfully failed to provide evidence to the parents' defense attorneys.

Matthews said despite the prosecution’s failure to turn over evidence, the Crumbleys did not show that the evidence would have changed the result of the trial so much that the verdict was undermined.

The Crumbleys then appealed Matthews' ruling to the Court of Appeals.

Jennifer Crumbley's attorney, Michael Dezsi, asked to sever the appeals because they are proceeding on different timetables and because the issues Jennifer raised are "markedly different" than the issues James raised.

"Mrs. Crumbley’s case was tried separately from her husband's whose trial followed months later," Dezsi wrote in the motion to sever the cases. "As such, Mrs. Crumbley’s appeal raises several issues that are fact specific to the evidence and testimony admitted at her trial."

Jennifer Crumbley also has already filed her appellate brief, while James Crumbley has not, Dezsi wrote.

"Forcing Mrs. Crumbley to wait for her husband’s briefing to be completed would only serve to delay, for months, Mrs. Crumbley’s right to have her appeal heard and decided upon completion of the briefing in her case," Dezsi wrote. "Given the disparate timelines, separate trials, and 'markedly different' and 'distinct' arguments raised by the parties, the Court’s goal of advancing the 'efficient administration of the appellate process' does not ring true."

Prosecutors said both parents were grossly negligent by storing a gun and ammunition where their son could access it, and that they missed repeated opportunities to stop the tragedy. The decision marked the first time in the United States that a parent was convicted of manslaughter for a mass shooting carried out by their child.

The Crumbleys have long argued that they did not know of their son's plans for a mass shooting at his school and never noticed any signs of his deteriorating mental state. Dezsi told the Court of Appeals that the trial was "riddled with errors."