The father of the Oxford High School shooter, now serving a 10-15-year sentence for involuntary manslaughter, has filed a motion requesting a new trial, in part because of agreements made with two Oxford school officials that were not given to his defense attorney.

In a 52-page motion filed Friday in Oakland Circuit Court, James Crumbley also argues that he deserves a new trial because of the court’s failure to properly handle the shooter’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights.

Crumbley, who was convicted last year of four counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with his son Ethan’s mass shooting at Oxford High School, has asked Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Matthews to grant him a hearing to see if his attorney was ineffective and for a new trial.

Alona Sharon, Crumbley’s appellate attorney, argued that Matthews failed to examine whether the shooter properly asserted his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self incrimination, and that Crumbley’s trial attorney, Mariell Lehman, failed to object when Matthews did not do this. Matthews did not allow the shooter to testify at Crumbley’s trial because he asserted blanket Fifth Amendment protections.

Sharon also said prosecutors committed a discovery violation when they failed to turn over copies of so-called proffer agreements they made with Oxford High School counselor Shawn Hopkins and former Dean of Students Nick Ejak, who both met with the shooter and his parents the morning of the 2021 shooting.

Sharon argued that Lehman was ineffective in several areas, including by failing to object to the prosecution’s dual theories of the case: that he improperly stored the gun and ammunition, which allowed Ethan access and that he was grossly negligent in protecting others from his son. Lehman did not respond for comment Friday.

Crumbley was convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter in March 2024 in connection with the November 2021 that left four students dead — Hana St. Juliana, 14; Justin Shilling, 17; Tate Myre, 16; and Madisyn Baldwin, 16.

His conviction marked the second time in the United States a parent was convicted with manslaughter for a mass shooting carried out by his or her child; the first was of his wife, Jennifer. Matthews sentenced them both to 10-15 years in prison.

Prosecutors said Crumbley acted in a grossly negligent way in storing a gun and ammunition where his son could access it and that he failed to control his child to keep him from harming others.

Jeff Wattrick, spokesperson for the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office, said Friday that Crumbley received a fair trial.

“As with Jennifer Crumbley, we believe the jury verdict in this case is correct and should be upheld,” Wattrick wrote in an emailed statement. “We are currently reviewing his appeal filing. Our office will respond in accordance with the court rules.”

Agreements with school officials

Federal courts have repeatedly recognized that proffer letters, like the ones given to Ejak and Hopkins, give witnesses an informal grant of immunity, despite the prosecution’s claims otherwise, Sharon wrote.

“There is no ambiguity, the proffer agreements extended immunity to both Hopkins and Ejak,” Sharon wrote. “Any argument to the contrary is intellectually dishonest and ignores the plain language of thecourt rule and the proffer agreements.”

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald allowed Ejak and Hopkins to sign the proffer agreements, which noted that she would consider the statements made by them during meetings with prosecutors “in deciding how to resolve this investigation as it relates to your client and any charges pending against your client being prosecuted by this office.”

Prosecutors never gave the proffer agreements to James Crumbley’s defense attorney, and the news of the agreements came out less than a week after he was convicted.

Matthews said during a motion hearing for Jennifer Crumbley in late January that she was “very, very” concerned about the possibility of a discovery violation as it relates to the proffer agreements.

The prosecution’s concealment of these agreements denied James Crumbley the opportunity to “expose the bias and motive of Hopkins and Ejak to testify favorably for the prosecution,” Sharon wrote. She said this failure to disclose the records was “intentional and willful.”

“Total concealment of the proffer agreements foreclosed any possibility of trial counsel’s ability and opportunity to cross-examine both Hopkins and Ejak about their immunity agreements and how those agreements affected their testimony and their bias and motive to appease the prosecution where possible criminal charges loomed overhead,” Sharon wrote.

Hopkins and Ejak were the only two prosecution witnesses who could have spoke about what happened during the meeting the morning of the shooting, Sharon wrote. The fact that they hired attorneys and insisted on proffer agreements shows neither man “had any interest in assisting the prosecution without protection.”

Though Assistant Prosecutor Marc Keast argued at Jennifer Crumbley’s motion hearing on this same issue that Hopkins and Ejak’s subjective opinions on the Crumbleys had no bearing on the case, Sharon said if this were true, “that means the prosecution improperly elicited irrelevant and prejudicial testimony from two witnesses.”

Prosecutors have maintained that they had no duty to share the proffer agreements because they did not make any promises of immunity.

Fifth Amendment

The shooter indicated his intention to assert his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination prior to his parents’ trials and Matthews said attorneys would not be allowed to call him. Sharon said Matthews failed to make the necessary inquiry after he pleaded the Fifth to ensure he was properly doing so.

Case law indicates a witness cannot refuse to answer all questions after invoking his Fifth Amendment right, and says the court must conduct an inquiry away from the jury about the implications of each question posed and if the witnesses refusal to answer is justified, Sharon wrote.

“It appears from the record that once appellate counsel informed the court that EC would invoke his Fifth Amendment right the trial court’s inquiry and consideration of the issue ended,” Sharon wrote. “This action was an abuse of discretion as the trial court was required to make a particularized inquiry to determine the validity of the assertion and it neglected to do so.”

Sharon argued that because Ethan had already pleaded guilty and been sentenced to life without parole, there was nothing left for him to testify to that would have further incriminated him.

Sharon argued Lehman could have asked Ethan a range of questions, including if he had asked his parents for mental health treatment or told them he was struggling. She also could’ve asked how Crumbley stored his guns and if the teen could access the guns without his parents’ permission.

“Had EC been called to testify he could have testified to all of the above information which would have been exculpatory to James Crumbley and would not have been incriminating to EC because none of this information was new to the prosecution or to his presiding judge,” Sharon wrote.

Inconsistent theories

Like Jennifer Crumbley’s attorneys, Sharon also argued that prosecutors used inconsistent theories to convict the shooter and his parents, which is a due process violation.

Prosecutors both said that Ethan Crumbley was not mentally ill, he didn’t have hallucinations and that his parents hid the gun from him, and that “James allowed his son unfettered access to firearms,” Sharon wrote. Sharon gave eight examples of prosecutors using inconsistent theories and evidence in Ethan’s case and James Crumbley’s case.

“It is this exact type of gamesmanship that violates a defendant’s due process rights,” Sharon wrote.

There was no evidence Crumbley had knowledge of prior violent or aggressive conduct by his son, Sharon wrote, which case law has shown needs to be there to find a parent has a legal duty to act to protect others from their child. This was one of the arguments given to the jury, but it should not have been, Sharon said.

“The prosecution cannot meet the most basic burden to establish a legal duty because there was no evidence that James knew his son had a propensity for violence or knew of past similar conduct, because no such evidence or conduct existed,” Sharon wrote.

Similarities to wife’s appeal

Crumbley’s motion is similar to his wife Jennifer Crumbley’s motion for a new trial, but his appellate attorney made sure to point out in her brief that she gave different legal arguments in some areas, and that Matthews should not rule against James Crumbley simply because she had already ruled against Jennifer Crumbley in a similar argument.

Matthews denied almost all of Jennifer Crumbley’s claims in her motion to dismiss or be granted a new trial. Only one claim remains: the issue of if prosecutors not turning over the proffer agreements they gave the two Oxford school officials is a severe enough discovery violation to warrant a new trial.