James Crumbley in court for change of venue hearing

e e e e e e e The Honorable Sherene Matthew is presiding good morning may seated your honor calling people vers James crumbly case number 22279 989 FH thank you Mar on be people good morning David BL on people good morning honor Mari L it on behalf of Mr Crumbley good morning um Mr crumble can you hear hear us you you have the headset on yes so I want to make sure you can hear us I can hear you if at any time you can't hear anything going on in the courtroom please let me know thank you all right all right so I have the uh former client uh waiver form that we're going to go through first Mr compley is also filling it out and signing it as we speak your all right Mr Crumbley could you uh raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth to help you gu yes right you can put your hand down and can you tell me your full name James Robert crumble and how old are you 47 can you read write and understand the English language yes can you hear and understand me yes could you hear and understand your attorney yes are you STIs with her advice yes you understand that you are charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter yes and you understand that you have the right to Conflict Free representation yes although there was uh formerly joint representation in this case do you understand that attorney Shannon Smith uh represented your uh wife Jennifer Crumbley and that Miss Mariel Leman now only represents you yes do you understand that your own interests and your your codefendants interests may be or um later may be or become material adverse yes all right do you understand that both your attorney and your codefendant attorney have indicated that there uh was previously a conflict of interest between you and your codefendant and that is why we have separate trials yes although although there are now separate trials do you understand that your codefendant is a former client of your attorney yes do you understand that the duty of confidentiality continues after the client lawyer relationship is terminated which means that your attorney still must protect the confidentiality of privileged information provided by your Cod defendant yes do you understand that given the duties owed to to former clients your attorney may be limited in their representation for example your attorney may not be able to use privileged information obtained from your codefendant to further your own interests yes do you understand these limitations can affect things such as decis decisions relating to the matters of trial strategy for example the Pres presentation of evidence at trial the examination of witnesses the decision to call certain Witnesses also potential negotiations in terms of a sentence agreement and also arguments made at sentencing yes do consent to attorney Shannon Smith continuing to solely represent uh your wife Miss Jennifer Crumley and attorney Mariel Leman continuing to solely represent you yes have you had the opportunity to consult with your retained councel as it relates to the to the issue of your representation yes do you understand that by entering the waiver you will not be able to raise these issues in an appeal should you be convicted yes do you have any questions uh about any of the uh issues raised on this form for either me or your attorney no all right thank you are you satisfied I am thank you okay all right so um at the moment there's been a number of motions zooming back and forth um but today I think the only motion uh we're addressing is a motion uh filed by the defense with regard to the prosecutor's uh added Witnesses correct corre um I know that's your motion but I think I'd like to ask for the prosecutor uh to provide offer proof with regard to these uh Witnesses I think that would be helpful yes I I know them only by their initials you all have the police reports and uh numerous numerous documents and uh so I'm not as familiar with some of the witnesses thank you judge is a little bit of background judge we amended our witness list 30 days prior to trial we did so while the jury was still deliberating in the case of people versus Jennifer Crumley we are acutely aware of the impact it has on witnesses to testify not just about what happened to them but a national television so when we amended the witness list we did so before we had the opportunity to speak with them to confirm that they would be available and ready to testify the next case we have and they are Cooperative they are ready and available to testify should they be called upon we added four names to the bus list three that were identified as minors two were actually have reached the age of majority I was going to ask you that yes judge so we would only seek to have those individuals testify initials KO and RF those individuals are both above the age of 18 are you um abandoning your request to call ha that's correct J okay right so we have confirmed with their families as well that they are ready willing and available should they be called or not okay so again we did so with as much much notice of Defense Council again it was 30 days prior to trial because we are aware that this court does run a very tight ship as the court uh recalls the last trial we were delayed from weather we had a witness who had Co we had another witness with child care issues we had yet had another witness who was on vacation we had to reorganize approved some presentation on the flag so we want to be able to present our case in an efficient manner we don't seek to expand the record necessarily but we do want to be prepared to have opportunities to present our case should one or more witness become unavailable for any particular reason okay well I I guess that's one of my questions because you have uh Molly Darnell and CHR Christy Gibson Marshall who testified in the previous trial testifying in this trial as well Dan corre because I I guess I read I don't know if it was a pre press in the Detroit News um interpretation of the addition of the witnesses that maybe there just to take the place of other Witnesses who uh felt too traumatized to testify so again I believe that was the interpretation judge and if it was articulated that way in the motion then that was I don't think it was but okay thank you judge I thought maybe I was mistaken so I I I believe so judge so so I'm I'm interested in in that yes they are available and they are cooperative and will be testifying in this case judge again when we when we amended the witness list it was right after they testified while the jury was still deliberating and we are aware of the impact it has on on everybody not just civilian Witnesses but police officers as well so we we wanted to be tent was not to add a number of witnesses it was to be prepared in the event that someone would have to drop out the last second Jud okay are are you able to give the court an offer of proof with regard to K RF and as a separate issue Kyle keer yes judge if I may I'll start with Mr keer so Mr keer is the original purchaser of the 6h hour 9mm handgun from the firearm store in Oxford he bought that firearm in May of 2021 he used the fire firearm three times he sold the firearm back to that same firearm store in Oxford on November the 13th of 2021 that's the gun that was purchased by this defendant James Crumbley on November the 26th okay so he was added in response to statements made by Jennifer crumley's attorney during her presentation of the case as well as Jennifer crumley's testimony now I don't know what council's argument is going to be regarding the firearm I don't know if Mr Crumbley is going to testify or what he might say so we added that individual he's potentially rebuttal witness obviously we have no obligation to identify rebuttal Witnesses however should the argument be presented in a certain fashion similar to that of Jennifer Crumbley I think the background of that firearm how it was stored how it was bought and sold would be relevant to the jury so he was added after hearing the codefendants case in chief judge okay I'm I'm I'm not following he you're adding him for the purposes of rebuttal only not necessarily okay so it again it depends I don't know how council is going to to litigate her case and obviously she's under no obligation to let us know that I I was struggling with the relevance he might bring to the case so so again he he bought the eventual murder weapon in May okay he used it three times he was provided with a cable lock he never used the cable lock he identified that as the same cable lock sold back to the firearm store okay which in turn will be identified by those witnesses as the same cable lock sold to Mr Grumble okay I get it now so again um okay and with KO and RF both were students let me make let me make sure that Mr ker would potentially uh be in your case and chief but you're asking for him on rebuttal well at a minimum potentially on case and Chief and it really just depends on how the case progresses all right okay thank you um KO and RF judge both students both wounded November the 30th 2021 they were both in the 200 hallway and they were struck as the defendant's son emerged from the bathroom adjacent to room 258 okay well I I guess breaking this down the fact that they were wounded is potentially not relevant what they saw is potentially relevant I well they they okay they both can provide testimony of seeing they didn't identify the shooter asked who the shooter was they didn't know him prior to but they saw a student dressing all in black RF saw the un raised she thought saw what she thought was an orange tip turns out it was actually the the muzzle flash of the firearm as it was fired at her at her correct both were wounded both survive obviously okay and they were they were together in the two hallway if the court recalls from the video in the the the group of uh young women next to the window okay so all right but don't we have a video of that we do have a video judge but and the video obviously is extremely relevant extremely important because the shooting is why we are here and when we have actual eyewitness testimony available it is important for the jury to hear that perspective okay what about ko ko was next to RF okay so why isn't this cumulative of either the video or Mar Molly Darnell or Christy Gibson Marshall Molly Darnell and M Gibson Marshall were in different parts of the school they had different interactions with the shooter KO and RF are the two individuals who are above the age of 18 with the best perspective of what happened on November 30th as a shooter emerged from the [Music] bathroom okay is there is there is there anything you want to add about um with regard to an offer approve because really this is Miss Leeman's motion but I thought it'd be more important to um have you start so that I would know what you are asking to present so yes [Music] sir again just we are limited to the indiv individuals we can call from that hallway because two were were murdered in that hallway so these are the two individuals that have the best perspective who are now above the age of 18 who cannot just who can actually testify as to what they saw what they felt what they heard as a shooter emerged from the bathroom and open fired okay it's not the same evidence as the video the video has no sound um the video does not give that sort of depiction that eye level depiction that eyewitness testimony J is not cumulative if we called every single student who was in that hallway it could be cumulative but we are being very selective and who were choosing the call to testify because we want to limit it to the individuals who can provide the appropriate context an appropriate perspective that is not identical to anyone else all right um I guess I'm going to I I've been doing a deep dive into 611 and 403 um you put the Black Rob on you get you learn how to uh read people's minds so miss Leman is going to tell me about us versus McCrae that which talks about uh 403 is major function um is limited to excluding a matter of scan or cumulative probative Force Dragged In by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect 403 is meant to relax the iron rule of evidence to permit the trial judge to preserve the fairness of the proceedings by exclusion despite its relevance it's not designed to to to permit the court to even out the weight of the evidence to mitigate a crime or to make a contest whether as little or none that's from that U McCrae case and there's a discussion of 403 so I want to steal your thunder butt your honor I did file the motion and I'm certain that the court has reviewed that motion um as the court suspect that I am going to draft specifically 403 um especially in light of the off off of proof uh that Mr ke just provided to the court regarding KO and RF your honor the while I can't imagine what those two students went through on November 30th of 2021 their testimony is not relevant in the trial against James Crumbley um he's been charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter he's not charged with assaulting anyone with a firearm he's not charged with shooting anyone and wounding anyone he's charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter for the actions of his son um as the court correctly noted Molly Darnell and Christy Gibson Marshall both testified in the prior trial and testified in relation to I believe in relation to the video that was admitted would you agree that they were not in the same location um as as the two witnesses KO and RF KO and RF did you say are both um outside the bathroom correct accurate the 200 hallway it's been identified as the shorter of the 200 hallways okay um I thought that in Miss leman's motion I think some of her information was gleaned from the victim impact State uh statements in the shooter sensing but I think there was an indication that KO was a friend of uh Tate and that RF was standing somewhere else maybe it's AJ who rendered help but we're ha right but ha we're not calling so are there um um would KO and RF be given the same testimony that's were they in the same Hall I it sounds like they were in the same poly run I believe Mr keiss indicated they were standing right next to each other at the time of the shooting um regardless I don't think that either of them are IR relevant in this case Runner I think that the court can agree and I I think that Mr keis would likely agree that that their testimony the primary purpose of their testimony is to inflame the emotions of the jury I mean their testimony or that whatever they can provide can also be provided in a video the whole purpose of admitting the video and not having sound on the video was to lessen the prejudicial impact on the jury it we litigated this previously and this has been discussed with the court the purpose of of the the video and admitting the video is to show the jury what actually occurred during that shooting the shooting is caught on the video your honor so the court has previously decided that the video is being admitted I I still don't believe that it's relevant in this case however I know that that's the Court's ruling so allowing the testimony of the of two students who were not only in the hallway but were also wounded by the shooter your honor I I just don't find it relevant and I think that it is even if the court finds it relevant it's highly and highly unfairly prejudicial in this case in light of the other evidence that the prosecution can present and again we've we've agreed that we've offered to stipulate to some of these facts so that these Witnesses don't have to testify so that the video doesn't have to to be played the prosecution doesn't want to do that judge well they don't they don't have and they don't have to it's their case to present your honor however when it comes to these two students their testimony even if the court finds it relevant is unfairly prejudicial to James Crumbley well that's um Bradberry says that all although relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair Prejudice confusion of the issues or misleading the jury or by considerations of undue delay waste of time or needless presentation of cumul of evidence that's Bradbury 123 MF 179 right Jud I I thought I heard a question directed to the prosecution from the court so one thing I I definitely do not agree that the video is being played to inflame the jury perhaps Council woman spoke which she said prosecutor agrees that's the purpose that's certainly not the purpose and also Jud the shooting is relevant this is a homicide case the shooting is evidence of the gross negligence so um the two individuals we identified they were not looking at the same thing they were not oriented the same direction they have different perspective persectives and again these are the only two surviving members of the hallway that we have confirmed with their families that they are willing and able to testify in this trial judge this is we are again acutely aware of the toll it takes on individuals to testify there's members of law enforcement who still can't talk about that day and we're also aware to not put cumulative evidence in front of the jury because it doesn't have any it doesn't have any purpose judge so we're aware of all that and just because we've added the witness list doesn't necessarily mean we're going to call all of them too we still have 13 days to decide which witnesses will will be presented at trial and which order anything anything further I'm I'm probably going to write something I wasn't I I guess um Miss Leeman you didn't um address Kyle keer I was sort of racking my brain to see why he's relevant but now I think he is your honor I I addressed him in my motion I I maintain the argument that I don't believe he's relevant well if he um he apparently might have some information about the ca cable lock and whether the cable lock was in the same condition um if he's shown the cable lock during the course of the trial if he testifies it's in the same condition it was in at the time that he resold the gun um that could be relevant so I'm I'm going to allow him uh to testify as to KO and RF um I'm probably going to spend a little time all right but I will let you know very quickly I've issued some orders on some of the other motions um and it issu some more orders this week and I got another motion last night so it's good that I don't have any other cases um what else can I do for you Council I spoke about meeting with the Corp briefly Chambers Logistics if that's sure agreeable um or maybe in the Jury Room if you want I I don't have anything to ask you about but if you if you'd like to meet talk about logistics that would be fine there's just one issue that I think we'd like to discuss with court okay thank you all right thank you judge thank you all right okay time to go I know for

Channel: FOX 2 Detroit

Views: 34,179

Keywords: Jennifer Crumbley, Oxford High School shooting, Oakland County, school shootings, jury deliberation, Jennifer Crumbley trial, news, detroit, fox 2 detroit, fox 2, michigan, local news, current events, michigan news, metro detroit, fox television, fox, crime, crime in michigan, shooting, murder, murder in michigan, crumbley, james crumbley, ethan crumbley, jennifer crumbley, crumbley parents, oxford trial, oxford shooter, court, courtroom, live court, oxford high school, trial

Id: Kq9CPVcX1D0

Length: 40min 18sec (2418 seconds)

Published: Wed Feb 21 2024