Counselors testify in manslaughter trial of school shooter’s dad

OXFORD, Mich. (CN) — The second week of testimony in the manslaughter trial of James Crumbley began Monday morning with former counseling staff for Crumbley's son on the stand.

The two witnesses, Oxford High School counselor Shawn Hopkins and former student dean Nicholas Ejak, had concerns over Ethan Crumbley in the days leading up to his Nov. 30, 2021, shooting spree in which he killed four Oxford High School students. Only a few hours before the boy began shooting, Hopkins and Ejak met with his parents, James and Jennifer Crumbley, to urge the couple to seek immediate mental health care for their son.

Now that James Crumbley is on trial facing four manslaughter charges related to his son's actions — and his wife has already been convicted on the same charges — prosecutors and James Crumbley's defense team are using theses two counselors to back up their respective narratives of the shooting. The attorneys' strategies mirrored those used when Hopkins and Ejak took the stand in Jennifer Crumbley's trial late in January.

Michigan prosecutors focused on the meeting the pair had in Hopkins' office with the Crumbley parents on the morning of the shooting, in response to violent imagery their son had drawn on a math sheet. It included the words "blood everywhere," a drawing of a 9mm handgun and a bullet-riddled body.

Prosecutor Marc Keast made sure to note how after that meeting, which lasted about only 15 minutes, the parents didn't remove their son from school for a mental health intervention as soon as possible. This went against Hopkins' advice and, per his testimony, was the only time in his experience that parents opted to keep their child in school after being alerted that their child voiced suicidal ideation.

"In your years as a high school counselor, how many times have you had to call a parent in and tell a mom or dad or guardian that you identified suicidal ideation in their child?" Keast asked Hopkins.

"15 to 20, over a dozen." Hopkins answered.

"And in those meetings, did the parent fail to take their child home?" Keast followed up.

"I can't think of any, no." the counselor said.

Hopkins had been concerned about the Crumbley boy for days prior to the shooting, testifying that one teacher found him researching bullets on his phone the day before. Earlier in the school year, other teachers also emailed him over the would-be shooter's behavior, including a Spanish class teacher who alerted Hopkins to concerning language the boy used in a writing assignment.

Combined with evidence the jury saw last week, including a video the Crumbley boy sent to his friend in August 2021 which showed him loading a gun and bragging that he found it after his dad left it out, Hopkins' and Ejak's testimonies were meant to cement the image of the Crumbley parents as negligent. In the prosecutors' telling of events, James Crumbley was, like his wife, dismissive of his son's worsening mental health and willfully ignorant of the danger the teen posed to himself and others.

"At any point were you informed about the defendant's son's access to weapons?" Keast asked Ejak.

"I was not," the former dean answered.

For James Crumbley's defense attorney Mariell Lehman, Hopkins' and Ejak's testimonies were opportunities to shift blame off her client — or at least argue that he was being held to an unfair standard.

Lehman cornered the school staff over why — if they were concerned for Ethan Crumbley's mental health and in-class behavior — they didn't act sooner to address the issue. She pushed Hopkins to admit on the stand that until the boy was caught looking up bullets on his phone one day before the shooting, he didn't call the Crumbley home to voice any concern.

"You did not, yourself, call Mr. Crumbley... You did not forward him the emails he received?" Lehman asked Hopkins.

"I did not," Hopkins answered to both questions.

Lehman pointed out, as Jennifer Crumbley's attorney did at her trial, that on the morning of the shooting Ejak even held the bag with the shooter's gun in it, but never searched it.

Both Hopkins and Ejak became exasperated by Lehman's cross-examination. Ejak conceded that if he had more information he would have taken different actions in the lead-up to the November 2021 shooting, but defended himself by saying he couldn't have acted with the benefit of hindsight in the moment.

"With all of this, all of the knowledge that you had on November 30 of 2021 at approximately 10:52 a.m., you did not feel that he was a threat to anyone and you did not feel that you had reasonable suspicion to look in his backpack?" Lehman asked the former dean.

"No, because you have to remember that I knew very little of what we all know today," Ejak responded.

This seemed to be the admission Lehman was looking for, inviting the jury to extend the same logic to her client. James Crumbley acted with the information on his son that he had available, she argued during her cross-examination of the school staff, and while he may have taken different actions had he known what his son was planning, the school's trained professionals were just as guilty of that lack of foresight.

"You might look at things differently looking in hindsight?" Lehman asked.

"I would 100% look at things differently." Ejak responded.

"But the information that you had on that day, at that time, is what led you to make the decisions that you made and feel the way that you felt about the situation you were presented with in Mr. Hopkins' office?" Lehman pressed.

"Yes, that's a fair statement." Ejak affirmed.

One difference in defense strategy between James and Jennifer Crumbley's respective trials was a focus on parental affection. Based on Hopkins' and Ejak's testimony, as well as video jurors saw of a police interview of the parents after the shooting occurred, James appeared more outwardly supportive of his son compared to his wife. It was a point on which Lehman made sure to remind jurors.

Later in the day, jurors also heard from Special Agent Brett Brandon with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Brandon also testified at Jennifer's Crumbley trial, and as in that case described his involvement with investigating the shooting weapon, a Sig Sauer 9mm semiautomatic handgun.

Brandon went on to discuss the shooter's visit to the gun range with his mother a few days before the shooting — video of which was played for the jurors — as well as the shooter's social media post bragging about getting the Sig Sauer with his father. Brandon also talked at length about gun safety in general. Prosecutors have repeatedly made the argument, both in this trial and at Jennifer's, that gun safety was lacking in the Crumbley household even as the defendants' son became fixated on guns.

"He drew his firearm... He drew a murder," Brandon said when viewing the math sheet that prompted the emergency counselor meeting with the Crumbley parents on the morning of the shooting.

Follow @djbyrnes1

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit