STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 6" CIRCUIT COURT FOR OAKLAND COUNTY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, Case No. 2022-279989-FH Hon. Cheryl A. Matthews JAMES CRUMBLEY, Defendant. KAREN D, McDONALD (P59083) MARIELL R. LEHMAN (P74760) Prosecuting Attorney Attorney for Defendant Oakland County Prosecutor's Office Lehman Law Firm, PLLC 1200 N. Telegraph Road 8113 Wilson Street Pontiac, MI 48341 Shelby Township, MI 48316 Ph.: (248) 858-0656 Ph.: (586) 291-3414 MARC A, KEAST (P69842) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Oakland County Prosecutor's Office 1200 N. Telegraph Road Pontiac, MI 48341 Ph.: (248) 858-0656 ig Oakland County Clerk 2/14/2024 4:02 PM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE V RELEVANT STATEMENT OF FACTS On November 30, 2021, the son of James and Jennifer Crumbley (“the shooter”) committed a school shooting at Oxford Hi h School, killing four students and injuring at least seven others including at least one teacher. The Oxford community was shocked, outraged, devastated, and ir 8 3 @ 2 o 3 oO oe a w = irae terrified On December 1, 2021, Prosecutor Karen McDonald announced that the shooter was being charged at a press conference. On December 3, 2021 at another press conference, ProsecutorMeDonald announced that she was charging James Crumbley and his wife Jennifer Crumbley. In the early weeks and months of the cases against both the shooter and his parents, Prosecutor MeDonald continued to participate in media interviews. Her interviews included but were not limited to the following: Local 4 with Karen Drew on 3/17/22; an interview on NPR: All Things Considered on 12/18/21; an interview on NPR: Detroit Today with Stephen Henderson on 12/14/21; a radio interview with Mojo in the Morning on 12/14/21; an interview with WXYZ Channel 7 ABC on 12/14/21; an interview on Good Morning America on 12/6/21; an interview with Brianna Keilar from CNN on 12/6/21; an interview on Click on Detroit with Devon Scillian ‘on 12/3/21; two interviews with Anderson Cooper 360 on 12/3/21 and 12/2/21. The problem with the interviews and quotes by Prosecutor McDonald is that she put out inaccurate and untrue information which effectively destroyed Mr. Crumbley and his wife in the media. This has eliminated his chance of having a fair trial. Ultimately this Court ordered that both the prosecution and defense refrain from making statements that they believed would be reported in the media, On October 24, 2022, the shooter pled guilty to all 24 counts that he had been charged with His plea hearing was televised and, upon information and belief, closely watched by the citizens of Oakland County. Subsequently, on July 27, 2023, July 28, 2023, August 1, 2023, and August 18, 2023, the prosecution and the shooter’s defense team conducted a Miller hearing which, again, was highly televised and, upon information and belief, closely watched by the citizens of Oakland County, On September 29, 2023, the Honorable Kwame Rowe delivered his Opinion and Order following the Miller hearing finding that the shooter could be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Again, Judge Rowe's delivery of his opinion and order was televised and highly publicized. Ultimately, on December 8, 2023 the shooter's sentencing hearing was held,and livestreamed, during which numerous victims of the Oxford High School shooting gave highly emotional statements and the shooter was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. On January 23, 2024, Jennifer Crumbley’s trial began, The first two days were not livestreamed but were highly reported on to the extent that media sources were reporting as potential jurors were excused or allowed to remain on the jury. Beginning January 25, 2024, Jennifer Crumbley’s trial began being livestreamed across many, many platforms. Due to the media coverage leading up to Jennifer Crumbley’s trial, itis believed that the majority of the citizens in Oakland County followed her trial. A number of evidentiary issues arose during Jennifer Crumbley’s trial, including but not limited to, the admission of evidence that was previously deemed irrelevant and inadmissible by this Honorable Court. On February 6, 2024, during continued livestreamed proceedings, Jennifer Crumbley was found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter by the jury. Within hours and days, the foreperson of the jury gave media interviews in which she provided insight into jury deliberations and the reasons why the foreperson felt that Jennifer Crumbley was guilty. James Crumbley’s trial is currently set to begin on March 5, 2024 in Oakland County. LAW AND ARGUMENT 1. CHANGE OF VENUE LAWIN GENERAL, Generally, criminal defendants must be tried in the county where the erime was committed. People v Jendrzejewski, 455 Mich 495; 566 NW2d 530 (1997). “An exception to the rule provides that the court may, in special circumstances where justice demands or statute provides, change venue to another county.” /d. at 499-500; see also MCL 762.7, “[T]he right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, “indifferent jurors.” Irvin v Dowd, 366 US 717; 81 SCt 1639; 6 Led2d 751 (1961). Therefore, it may be appropriate to change the venueof a criminal trial when (1) widespread media coverage and (2) community interest have led to actual prejudice against the defendant. “Community prejudice amounting to actual bias has been found where there was extensive highly inflammatory pretrial publicity that saturated the community to such an extent that the entire jury pool was tainted, and, much more infrequently, community bias has been implied from a high percentage of the venire who admit to a disqualifying prejudice.” Jendrzejewski at 500-501. Changes of venue are appropriate and required in cases involving “extensive egregious media reporting,” “a barrage of inflammatory publicity leading to a ‘pattem of deep and bitter prejudice” against the defendant,” and when “a camival-like atmosphere surround{s] the proceedings.” Jd. at 506-507 (citations omitted). Changes of venue are also appropriate and required in eases involving “highly inflammatory attention to sensational details..." Jd. at 508. “A defendant has the right to be tried by an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community.” People v Jackson (On Reconsideration), 313 Mich App 409, 428; see also People v Jackson (On Reconsideration) 313 Mich App 409; 884 NW2d 297 (2015), citing US Const Am VI; Const 1963, art 1, § 20; People v Bryant, 491 Mich 575; 822 NW2d 124 (2012). Venue in a criminal case may be changed “upon good cause shown by either party.” MCL 762.7. Good cause concerns the ability to obtain a fair trial in a county where the action is brought. Jn re Attorney General, 129 Mich App 128; 341 NW2d 253 (1983), However, a motion for change of venue will be granted when a community is so aroused that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had. People v Schneider, 309 Mich 158; 14 NW2d 819 (1944). The party seeking a change of venue must not only show that pretrial publicity surrounds the case, but the defendants have the burden of proving either (1) strong community feelings against them and that the publicity is so extensive that jurors could not remain impartial whenexposed to it; or, (2) that the jury was actually prejudiced or that the atmosphere surrounding the trial was such as would create probability of prejudice. People v Hack 219 Mich App 299; 556 NW2d 187 (1996). As the Court is aware, the publicity and public interest surrounding the trial of James Crumbley and Jennifer Crumbley has far exceeded the publicity and public interest surrounding the proceedings related to the shooter. “[T]o properly preserve a challenge to the jury array, a party must raise this ‘sue before the jury is empaneled and sworn.” People v McKinny, 258 Mich App 157; 670 NW2d 254 (2003) (emphasis added). It stems from both state and constitutional rights to be tried by an impartial jury People v Miller, 482 Mich $40; 759 NW2d 850 (2008); see also US Const, Am VI; Const 1963 art 1, § 20. "In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, “indifferent jurors." /rvin at 722. As such, the defense raises this issue so the challenge is properly litigated and preserved For the reasons set forth below, the defense explicitly asks for a change of venue. The defense is not requesting any particular county and would leave that to the Court’s discretion. Depending on what county is selected — by the Court or the State Court Administrator’s Office ~ the distance between the counties may dictate whether it’s practical to transport the jury in, or better to move the trial itself. Mr. Crumbley wants, and is entitled to, a fair trial with impartial jurors who do not have personal connections to the school shooting or its victims and jurors who have not been influenced by the inflammatory media, consistent livestream coverage, numerous media articles, and particularly by interviews conducted with Prosecutor McDonald that include completely inaccurate information that the public has accepted and repeated as facts of the case.tl. THE SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED AND DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THE. OXFORD HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTING, AND SUBSEQUENT MEDIA COVERAGE, WILL MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SELECT AN IMPARTIAL JURY. Similar to other highly emotional and high profile cases in our country, the number of people affected by the shooter’s actions ~ in addition to the number of people who have watched livestreams of proceedings over the last two years ~ i cant and widespread. These factors signil make it impossible to select a fair and unbiased jury in the usual methods that the trial court relies on to determine who truly can be fair and openminded when listening to the evidence of the case. ‘The sheer number of Oakland County residents who were directly involved in the case as ims, fa ies of victims, investigators and law enforcement who responded to the shooting scene makes jury selection from Oakland County particularly difficult, Oxford High School has approximately 1,800 students and a full-time staff of teachers and administrators who were in the building at the time the shooting occurred. In addition to the Oxford Police Department who responded, law enforcement from many surrounding Oakland County departments did as well. More than 400 people, including emergency responders from 45 federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, other organizations, as well as other citizens came to the scene to assist. Specifically, discovery indicates that the following police departments responded and provided reports: Oakland County Sheriff's Office, including multiple substations, Lake Orion, Grand Blane Township, Royal Oak, Michigan State Police, Novi, Troy, Southfield, Auburn Hills, Ferndale, Franklin Village, Berkley, Huntington Woods, Bloomfield Township, and Oxford Village. Fire departments from Oxford, Independence, Orion Township, Brandon, Bloomfield Township, Rochester Hills, and West Bloomfield were also listed as first responders.To say that finding jurors who are not directly connected to a person involved in the November 30, 2021 shooting will be difficult is a significant understatement. Even if a jury can be picked, jurors could never return home to their loved ones afier acquitting Mr. Crumbley, knowing that they disappointed the many victims who want to see as many people held accountable as possible, There is no question that many residents of Oakland County just lived through the worst tragedy of their lives. There is no doubt that parents watched their worst nightmare unfold and experienced fear in a way that cannot be described. The shooter's actions are horrific and created an incident that will not soon be forgotten, Further, as the prosecution has indicated previously, the Prosecutor's Office notifies over 1,800 people by e-mail any time there is a change in the case or information to be relayed. There is no way that prospective jurors who witnessed portions of the events on November 30, 2021, or people who know first responders to the shooting scene, or those who have donated to the families who lost loved ones, can set aside their bias and feelings about this case. It is simply too devastating. Further, in addition to GoFundMe and similar fundraising websites for the victims of the Oxford High School shooting, there have been many other local fundraising efforts to raise money for various causes in the aftermath of the shooting, As has been previously noted, numerous media articles notify the community of numerous fundraising events throughout the community and the county as a whole. In Irvin v Dowd, the United States Supreme Court discusses juror bias. The court states, “As stated in Reynolds, the test is ‘whether the nature and strength of the opinion formed are such as in the law necessarily raise the presumption of partiality.” Jrvin v. Dowd, 366 US 717, 723; 81 SCt 1639, 1643; 6 Led 2d 751 (1961), The 1961 case addresses media coverage in 1961,characterizing it as “days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication.” Considering the Jrvin case is over fifty years old, the methods of communication have significantly improved with the internet, social media, and the ability to livestream hearings in real time. It is itless media likely that every potential juror has a handheld device that gives them access to lis right at their fingertips ~ including breaking news and updates as the shooter’s and his parents” cases have proceeded. The number of people who have an interest in this particular case is alarming. Since the start of this case, multiple local media outlets have live-streamed the court hearings involving all of the Crumbleys. The significant numbers of people who have watched or commented on various social media, or news media, livestreams or recordings do not even include viewers who watched through television channels, other news sources live-streaming the hearings, or other social media platforms that showed court proceedings. On the day that Jennifer Crumbley’s verdict was reached, the Fox 2 Detroit livestream on YouTube received 152,000 views. In the days that have followed Jennifer Crumbley’s trial, there have been numerous media stories and articles related to James Crumbley and speculation around his trial ‘The media coverage that clearly draws a lot of attention shows the reactions by the public to be very unfavorable to the Crumbleys, They have been clearly convicted in the court of public opinion, Common themes in the comments below articles and videos include that Mr. Crumbley and his wife should lose their lives or, at a minimum, spend the rest of their lives in prison. Most significantly and most problematic, is that the public has clearly adopted the narrative that the prosecution purported early on in this case — that the shooter was mentally ill and that James and Jennifer Crumbley were fleeing from justice ~ both of which are simply not true. When the comments state that James Crumbley knowingly put a gun in his mentally disturbed child’shands, the commenters are simply repeating the narrative that the prosecution put out early in this case. The tragedy of November 30, 2021 continues to overshadow everything that happens at finue to be true. Oxford High School and in the community. The defense asserts that this will co1 In addition to coverage related to the shooter, James Crumbley, and Jennifer Crumbley, there has been media coverage of civil lawsuits filed by the victims of the shooting as well as media reports related to investigations into the actions of school officials The emotional reactions to the school shooting are justified. When the shooting first unfolded, Mr. Crumbley and Jennifer Crumbley were told by law enforcement that they should leave their home for their own safety. They were being notified of numerous threats to their safety and it was determined that they were no longer safe to remain in their home. As a result, they left and stayed at other locations. Since his arrest, James Crumbley has been housed in single-person cells, sometimes in a unit with the lights on 24 hours per day, and always unable to leave his cell for more than hour per day while in the custody of the Oakland County Jail It is clear that due to the significant and constant media reporting, social media posts, written articles, interviews with the prosecutor, and other factors, there is no way that a fair and impartial jury can be selected in Oakland County. It is obvious that many still believe the inaccurate information that has been placed in the public domain. It is impossible to have jurors forget what they have heard and seen since November 30, 2021 and even more so, as recently as Jennifer Crumbley’s trial in January 2024. In order to have a fair trial with impartial and unbiased jurors, a change of venue using jurors from a different county will be required.CONCLUSION Granting a change of venue of a trial of this caliber is constitutionally required to ensure a fair trial and to reduce the risk of a costly, burdensome, and difficult retrial. No one involved in Mr, Crumbley’s case wants to see this trial take place more than once. It would be unfair to both the victims and Mr. Crumbley. This case presents many issues, some of which could have been avoided if there had not been significant comments made by the prosecution in the early months of this case and if the media had not reported on the pending matter as frequently and consistently as it did. As this Court is aware, the parties could not file motions or responses without one or both being reported on in multiple news outlets There is no question that ordinarily Oakland County jurors have been considered fair, attentive, and dedicated jurors. This case, however, is an extraordinarily unique case that has personally impacted so many in the Oakland County community, Combined with the complication of the media issues explained above, the public has come to adopt and repeat inaccurate and irrelevant facts as if they are true and relevant In a case like this, where there is a high likelihood that pretrial publicity and the community's connection to a case have affected the impartiality of jurors, the court must assure a fair trial, The only way to do this is to assure that a defendant's constitutional rights are met and that the constitutional balance swings in favor of assuring that the accused receives a fair trial, As the United States Supreme Court held, “the trial courts must take strong measures to ensure that the balance is never weighed against the accused.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 US 333 (1966). WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in Mr. Crumbley’s Motion, James Crumbley respectfully requests that this court grant his motion to change venue so that an impartial jury from a county other than Oakland County can be selected -10-Respectfully submitted: Dated: February 14, 2024 Maill Re. Lifonan MARIELL R. LEHMAN (P74760) Attomey for Defendant “lle