On November 30th, 2021, Crumbley confessed to the murder of his fellow students at Oxford High School: Hana St. Juliana, 14, Madisyn Baldwin, 17, Tate Myre, 16, and Justin Shilling, 17. Additionally, he caused injuries to seven other individuals.
Crumbley, now 17, carried out the shooting when he was 15 but was prosecuted as a grown-up.
On September 29, Judge Kwamé L. Rowe, who presides over the Circuit Court of Oakland County, announced that he will decide the sentencing on Friday in the case.
Defense attorneys and prosecutors have been engaged in a month-long dispute over the hearing called Miller. This hearing is used to determine if life sentences are appropriate for children.
Crumbley argued that he was mentally troubled, although he understood the consequences since he pulled the trigger several times. He contended the prosecutors’ testimony over numerous hours.
Prosecutors argued that the massacre was the culmination of his planning, which included violent fantasies, sketches of mutilating birds, and a desire to see his victims suffer and live to be remembered.
On Friday, the concluding arguments stated that in McDonald County, Oakland, there were individuals who were selecting and deciding, and it was mentioned that there were opportunities to cease. It was stated that this plan was an implementation of the execution.
Public defender Paulette Loftin, who represents Crumbley, argues that he is not a juvenile and suffers from a mental illness, living in a dysfunctional family that mostly disregarded his mental well-being, and lacks the capacity for rehabilitation.
“Ethan was disregarded,” she stated on Friday. “Ethan, in his unique manner, pleading for assistance, still went unnoticed.”
If a crucial factor could help decide if he deserves a life without prison parole, expert witnesses on both sides clashed over Crumbley’s mental health in the past few weeks.
At a previous court appearance, psychologist Colin King, speaking on behalf of the defense, described Crumbley as “an individual who is deeply troubled with a damaged mind.” In the course of the proceedings, video evidence surfaced, showing Crumbley in tears while incarcerated in May, consistently holding God responsible for failing to prevent the shooting.
Crumbley contended that King, who obtained his doctorate from Wayne State University in Detroit, was hallucinating while expressing profound grief and experiencing a psychosis, a detachment from reality, during the shootings.
Lisa Anacker, a forensic psychiatrist associated with the Forensic Psychiatry Center in Ann Arbor, countered the claim on Friday, stating that the mentally ill Crumbley had not been found by the Detroit Free Press after they reported on him.
Friday, according to Anacker, expressed feeling mentally overwhelmed and impulsively tended to people with psychotic tendencies. However, there was a delay in demonstrating the ability to act, leading to the shooting that Crumbley had planned, but waited for.
She contended, “That’s not what occurred,” if he simply couldn’t be patient because he was so overwhelmed with delusions and hallucinations, he could have easily executed it in one go, right from the beginning.
Two scenarios, a paradox?
Prosecutors are arguing that Crumbley does not meet the legal definition of insanity at the same time they are pursuing a separate involuntary manslaughter case against Jennifer and James, his parents, alleging that they failed to get the help that could have prevented the shooting and protected the mental health of the troubled teen.
Instead, they purchased Ethan Crumbley the firearm he utilized to murder his fellow students.
Prosecutors contended that, under those circumstances, “They took no action.” … If they had requested to visit a physician … If they had disclosed experiencing hallucinations, these parents were aware.
In a recent hearing regarding the shooter’s case, Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor David Williams contended that the parents’ defenders claimed that Ethan Crumbley did not receive assistance from others due to his reluctance to seek help.
Loftin, Crumbley’s appointed lawyer, utilized the inconsistency to challenge the prosecutors on Friday.
Loftin stated on Friday that it is not possible to argue two different issues in two different courtrooms, but rather, it is a single set of facts.
Mark Chutkow, a former federal prosecutor, cautioned Bridge Michigan on Friday that prosecutors must exercise caution to avoid appearing contradictory.
“Despite not being clinically insane,” he stated, the prosecution contends that the indications of distress exhibited by Crumbley should have raised concerns for the parents.
According to Chutkow, the defense encounters a comparable obstacle.
Instead of pleading guilty, Crumbley later withdrew his plea and filed a notice of insanity on behalf of Loftin, last year.
However, the defendant argued on Friday that Crumbley’s psychological requirements were consistently neglected.
Loftin expressed his affection, saying, “I have deep feelings for you. I am willing to go to great lengths to support you.” Loftin clarified that the mentioned actions were not carried out by the individuals in question. They did not enter the room and utter those words. They did not bring them back to their residence. They did not escort him to a medical professional. Instead, his parents took charge of their son, who was facing emotional distress, cognitive limitations, and potential health issues.
“Do you know what they did? They purchased him a firearm.”
Mitigating circumstances?
Chutkow stated that it would be difficult for the defense to meet the high bar of proving insanity. This is why the defender, Crumbley, later withdrew the possibility of using insanity as a defense. The defense could still argue that Crumbley should be kept in parole without serving life behind bars due to his ongoing mental health issues.
Chutkow stated, “To plead insanity, the shooter must be proven to be unable to understand the quality and nature of his actions or to distinguish right from wrong as a result of a severe mental disorder or defect.”
Chutkow stated that the magistrate will consider Crumbley’s age, familial circumstances, responsibility, psychological well-being, and the gravity of the offense in order to ascertain his punishment, instead of potential incongruities.
He said, “The judge has to make the decision him or herself based on the evidence.” The government has not been consistent or perfectly clear as to whether they are playing a game of gotcha in court.