Prosecution releases confidential agreements it brokered with 2 Oxford school employees
Tresa BaldasThe Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office on Wednesday released confidential agreements it brokered more than two years ago with two key school employees who were given assurances that their comments to investigators regarding the 2021 mass shooting at Oxford High School would not be used against them.
The employees were counselor Shawn Hopkins and former dean of students Nicholas Ejak, the two school officials who made a controversial decision on the morning of the shooting to let the teenage gunman stay in school despite receiving multiple alerts about his behavior in the 24 hours prior. They never searched his backpack, which contained the murder weapon, or insisted that his parents take him home, despite summoning them over a troubling drawing he had made of a gun, a human body bleeding, and the words, "The thoughts won't stop. Help me."
Hopkins and Ejak wound up testifying against both parents at their trials, which ended in convictions, though the defense did not learn until this week that the witnesses had received what's known in legal circles as "proffer agreements," which protect individuals who are meeting with investigators from having their words used against them.
The defense learned of those agreements after the Free Press disclosed them in an exclusive story that offered a closer look at how the prosecution built its historic case against the Crumbleys, and sought to explain why school officials had not been criminally charged despite the outcry from the victims' parents, who have long called for accountability by the school and its employees.
Prosecutor's Office stresses that no one got immunity
On Friday, one day after the final Crumbley family member was convicted — James Crumbley, the shooter's father — the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office issued a statement saying no criminal charges would be filed against any school employees because there is no evidence to support doing so.
The evening before, standing with parents who repeated their calls for school accountability, Prosecutor Karen McDonald said, “We want to hold everyone accountable.
"I’ve made a commitment to these parents, and I'm going to keep it," she said. “I’m going to look at the facts and work with them to get the accountability they deserve.”
On Saturday, in another statement to the Free Press, the Prosecutor's Office maintained that McDonald "has said from the very beginning that she has reviewed all available evidence and has not seen any evidence that would support criminal charges for anyone at the school or district."
On Tuesday, the Prosecutor's Office reiterated those points in yet another statement, and elaborated about the proffer letters.
On Wednesday, the office released the agreements.
"Given the ongoing speculation surrounding the proffer agreements, and in the interest of transparency, the office is releasing the agreements," the office said in a statement, which also reiterated its assertion that "no one got immunity."
"Those agreements were drafted by the prosecutor’s office, and they made crystal clear to Hopkins, Ejak and their attorneys … that there was never an implicit or explicit promise of immunity, leniency or favoritism of any kind," the statement reads. "As you will see, these letters spell that out. Because there were no promises of any kind, those letters were not required to be disclosed."
Defense attorneys say agreements should have been disclosed
Defense experts disagree, arguing the U.S. Supreme Court has issued two key rulings that address this issue and require that the prosecution disclose to the defense both exculpatory evidence and any information that could challenge the credibility of a witness — in this case, the school officials.
According to the newly disclosed documents, Hopkins and Ejak each signed proffer agreements about six weeks before they testified at the Crumbleys' preliminary exam in February 2022, when their testimony helped convince a judge that there was probable cause to charge James and Jennifer Crumbley with involuntary manslaughter.
Hopkins signed his agreement on Jan. 5, 2022. Ejak signed his on Dec. 30, 2021, exactly one month after the massacre that left four students dead and seven other people injured.
More than two years later, prosecutors would again rely on the school employees' testimony, which helped lead two separate juries to convict the Crumbleys of involuntary manslaughter for their roles in the shooting that was carried out by their son.
'No promises of favorable consideration'
The Oakland County Prosecutor's Office adamantly denies making any promises to the school officials that they wouldn't be charged in exchange for their testimony, and says the proffer agreements state just that.
The agreements contain a specific section that begins: "No promises of favorable consideration."
"Your client is not entitled to any consideration regarding pending or possible charges or sentence recommendations by the government just because your client participates in a proffer session. Such consideration, if any, will be unilaterally determined by the government only after your client's proffer is evaluated. The government makes no representation about the likelihood that any additional agreement will be reached as a result of the proffer."
In legal circles, proffer is an offer of evidence in support of an argument — in other words, the information the school employees were sharing with investigators during their interviews.
The Prosecutor's Office has maintained that what Ejak and Hopkins said during their interviews with investigators matched what they said in their trial testimony.
As Assistant Chief Prosecutor David Williams has previously argued:
“Two school employees agreed to sit down with the prosecution and truthfully provide all the information they had. ... 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, orit would have been provided."
Defense attorney Shannon Smith, who represented Jennifer Crumbley, disagrees with that position and says she "absolutely" should have been provided with the proffer agreements, which would have helped her challenge the credibility of the school witnesses at trial.
Mariell Lehman, who is representing James Crumbley, declined to comment. So did attorneys for Ejak and Hopkins, prominent criminal defense attorneys Steve Fishman and Mitchell Ribitwer.
James Crumbley's threats against McDonald
Meanwhile, the Prosecutor's Office also disclosed on Wednesday that it plans to use James Crumbley's alleged threats he made toward McDonald in jail phone calls against him at sentencing. The alleged threats came up in the middle of Crumbley's trial and cost him his communications pending the outcome of his case.
What he said, to whom he said it or whom he threatened was not disclosed until the Free Press published a story Monday revealing that McDonald was the target of his alleged threats.
"To be clear, those threats were directly addressed to the prosecutor by name, telling her what was going to happen to her when he is released," the Prosecutor's Office said in a statement Wednesday. "Those threats are serious, and they also reflect a lack of remorse and a continued refusal to take accountability for his part in the deaths of Hana, Madisyn, Tate and Justin."
In separate trials, James and Jennifer Crumbley were convicted on four counts of involuntary manslaughter for causing the deaths of four students murdered by their son: Tate Myre, 16; Hana St. Juliana, 14; Madisyn Baldwin, 17, and Justin Shilling, 17. They are scheduled to be sentenced on April 9, with each facing up to 15 years in prison.
Prosecutors argued at both trials that the Crumbleys ignored a troubled son, and instead of getting him help, they bought him a gun, which he used during his rampage. The Crumbleys say they never saw any signs that their son was mentally ill or would ever hurt anyone, had no knowledge of his plan to shoot up his school, and that the gun at issue wasn't allowed to be used freely but only under parental supervision at the shooting range. They claimed it was properly stored in their bedroom armoire, unloaded, with the bullets hidden in a separate drawer.
Their son, Ethan, pleaded guilty to all his crimes and is serving life without the possibility of parole.
Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@freepress.com