Thursday, March 6, 2025

PONTIAC, Mich. - Oakland County Prosecutor KAREN D. McDONALD filed a brief in Oakland County Circuit Court today in response to Jennifer Crumbley’s meritless motion to disqualify the Prosecutor’s Office from Crumbley’s case.

“As our brief makes clear, the defense’s motion was filed for an improper purpose,” said Prosecutor McDonald, who successfully led the first-in-the-nation prosecution of parents for a school shooting. “Our argument shows their motion is less a legal maneuver and more a cheap publicity stunt.”

The Prosecutions motion punctures the false narrative that the defendant was tried in the press.

Among the deepest flaws in the deeply flawed motion is the suggestion that the media attention surrounding the Oxford High School shooting was generated by the Prosecutor’s Office. As defendant notes in her own brief, there was massive media attention in the hours immediately after the shooting, before the prosecution said a word. The Prosecutor’s Office was immediately inundated with hundreds of media inquiries. Unlike every other countywide elected official in Oakland County, on the day of the Oxford shooting, the Prosecutor’s Office did not have any communications person to receive and respond to the media. As the calls and inquiries poured in, the Prosecutor’s Office asked for, and the County Executive and Board of Commissioners approved of, the retention of crisis communications professionals to field and respond to those calls. The Prosecutor’s Office did the right thing by victims, the taxpayers, and the public by timely responding with accurate, reliable information.

In her repeated references to a smear campaign, Jennifer Crumbley never points to any media coverage. That’s because there was no smear campaign, and because the negative portrayals of Jennifer Crumbley were the result of the facts. For example, her social media posts about buying her son a gun as an early Christmas present and taking him to the shooting range three days before the shooting, the drawing school officials texted to her and showed her on the day of the shooting, her decision not to take her son home, and her flight to a warehouse in Detroit instead of turning herself in.

The Prosecution further argues the defense’s motion is not permissible under court rules as Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Matthews is already considering or has already considered these exact issues on an appeal, which is still pending. The Prosecution requests the Court impose sanctions on the defense for this irresponsible abuse of the court system.

It is also important that the Court rules do not permit the filing of such a motion when an appeal is already pending. MCR 7.208(B)(1). This court should strike the motion as improperly filed.

Lastly, knowing that such a motion is not permitted under the Court Rules and does not raise any new issues, the Court must ask, why was the Motion filed? The answer is obvious. It was filed to generate headlines, personally attack the Prosecutor and the prosecution team, and divert attention from the defendant’s gross negligence that resulted in four deaths. That is not a proper purpose under the Court Rules, and defense counsel should be sanctioned.

“I respect the defendant’s right to an appeal and due process,” said Prosecutor McDonald. “However, this motion is outside the bounds of the normal adversarial process. It’s exploitative and disrespectful to the memories of Hana St. Juliana, Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, and Justin Shilling and to the trauma of all the Oxford victims.”

If sanctions are granted, the Prosecution will request those payments go to charities supported by the Oxford School Shooting victims.

Additionally, the Prosecution filed a supplement to its response to address the misleading statements made by defense attorney Michael Dezsi to the media.

During the press conference, Mr. Dezsi repeated the false statement that crisis communication firms were contracted in secret.1 That is blatantly false.

The crisis communications firms were not hired in secret—they were known to every media outlet that covered the Oxford cases. The funds to pay them were allocated by the Board of Commissioners with the support of the County Executive, and their fees were paid by Oakland County, not the Prosecutor’s Office. None of that was secret. The work of the first firm was publicly reported almost 3 years ago – see Exhibit 2, Crains Business Detroit article from May 17, 2022. The retention of those crisis communications firms saved the taxpayers money when compared to the cost of a Public Information Officer—those fees were less than half the cost of a full-time PIO.

Defendant’s motion and counsel’s public statements were intended to mislead the Court as well as the public. The People reaffirm their request for sanctions under MCR 1.109(E)(6)

The Prosecution’s brief and supplement (with exhibits) are linked below.

OCPO Response Brief

OCPO Supplemental Filing

###

CONTACT: OCPOmedia@oakgov.com