PONTIAC, Mich. (WXYZ) — We’re learning more about the agreements given to two Oxford school officials during the criminal prosecution of the deadly school shooting.
The Oakland County prosecutor says no immunity was given and maintains her team did not have to turn over the proffer agreements to the Crumbley’s lawyers, but defense attorneys disagree.
After two different trials where two different juries found James and Jennifer Crumbley each guilty of involuntary manslaughter, questions are now being raised about the role of proffer agreements in the historic cases.
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald accused the parents of failing to take simple steps to prevent their 15-year-old son from accessing the gun that he used to murder four of his classmates inside Oxford High School.
“The truth is, one small effort could have saved their lives,” McDonald said.
Hana St. Juliana, Tate Myre, Madisyn Baldwin and Justin Shilling were shot to death on Nov. 30, 2021. The shooter is serving life in prison, and his parents face up to 15 years behind bars.
Earlier this week, news broke that school counselor Shawn Hopkins and Oxford’s former Dean of Students Nicholas Ejak were given something called proffer letters, so the statements they provided to prosecutors could not be used to file charges against them.
They were the last administrators to meet with the shooter before his rampage in the school.
“It is an agreement between a prosecutor’s office and an individual that whatever they say as long as they’re truthful will not be used against them,” Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan President Arthur Weiss said.
Late Wednesday, McDonald issued a press release explaining that the proffer agreements were “never an implicit or explicit promise of immunity, leniency, or favoritism of any kind.”
“There was absolutely no protection from prosecution for anyone,” McDonald told 7 Action News reporter Simon Shaykhet during an interview Monday. “And the witnesses who testified were promised nothing and they were given nothing.”
McDonald also released the actual agreements on Wednesday after several requests for the proffers.
Ejak signed his agreement exactly one month after the shooting in 2021, and Hopkins signed his a few days later on Jan. 5, 2022.
The proffer agreements are addressed to the attorneys of the school officials and say Ejak and Hopkins received “no promises of favorable consideration.” But the deals also say, “this office will not offer any proffer statements made by you or your client in this office’s case-in-chief in any criminal prosecution of your client.”
James Crumbley’s attorney, Mariell Lehman, told 7 investigator Heather Catallo during an interview on Monday that she had not been provided the agreements.
“I don't recall ever receiving anything in writing from the prosecutor's office indicating that there were any protection for any of the school employees,” Lehman said.
After the actual documents were released, Lehman declined to comment Thursday on the details of the records.
McDonald maintains she did not have to turn over the agreements during discovery.
“The only thing required to give to the defense is any agreement we've made with a witness that gives them a plea deal or immunity in exchange for their testimony under oath to prove our case. That was not done. It was not done,” McDonald said.
“Both witnesses subsequently testified under oath without any promises or protection, and they were given nothing for their testimony. The information they provided in that initial meeting was exactly what they testified to under oath in court. None of the information provided at the initial meeting was exculpatory to the defense, or it would have been provided,” said Oakland County Chief Assistant Prosecutor David Williams in a written statement.
Weiss disagrees and says the agreements should have been turned over to the defense attorneys.
“I would imagine they’ll (the defense) be filing a motion before sentencing with the court to set aside the conviction and ask for an evidentiary hearing, so it can all be fleshed out,” Weiss said. “The United States constitution provides for due process, going back to at least the early 1960s and throughout the last 60 years, the United States Supreme Court on a number of occasions has discussed what due process mandates a prosecution discloses to the defense. In ‘72 in the Giglio case, they said any type of agreements or understandings that a prosecution witness has to be disclosed. The Michigan Supreme Court in a court rule has indicated whether it’s an immunity agreement or any type of agreement, it’s to be disclosed. It’s mandatory.”
McDonald has said publicly that so far, there is not sufficient evidence to support criminal charges against anyone at the school.
If new information comes to light, that position could change and they could still bring charges.
The proffer agreements released by the prosecutor's officer are below: