SENTENCING: Oxford School Shooter’s Parents - MI v. James & Jennifer Crumbley

TL;DR

Sentencing proceedings for Mrs. Crumbley raise objections to the scoring of offense variables based on the unique circumstances of the case.

Transcript

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e oh yeah yeah I was saying that we I think we have one extra chair yeah we [Applause] for okay e you all the ones you yeah yeah yeah oh okay you okay [Applause] [Applause] on okay you e for for for right here for okay for I that's s [Applause] okay all All Rise court is now in session The Honorable che... Read More

Key Insights

• ⚾ The defense objects to the scoring of offense variables based on the unique circumstances of the case, which involve the shooter's decisions and actions that were out of the defendants' control.
• 🧑‍🏭 The defense argues that the scoring guidelines do not adequately consider the specific facts of this case, making it a matter of first impression.
• 🎁 The prosecution contends that the scoring is appropriate based on the jury's findings and evidence presented during the trial.
• 🤨 The defense raises concerns about the accuracy of the pre-sentence investigation report and the impact of false narratives in the media.

Questions & Answers

Q: What are the defense's objections to the pre-sentence investigation report?

The defense argues that the narrative summary contains inaccuracies and biased information, as it relies heavily on police reports and does not consider the unique circumstances of the case.

Q: Why do the defendants object to the scoring of offense variable 7?

The defense claims that there was only one act of gross negligence, which was the shooter's decision to harm multiple victims. They argue that Mrs. Crumbley cannot be held accountable for multiple acts of gross negligence.

Q: What objections does Mrs. Crumbley raise against offense variable 9?

Mrs. Crumbley disputes the scoring of this variable, which considers the number of victims, arguing that her actions did not demonstrate intent to kill or injure. She claims that her son's actions were out of her control and should not be attributed to her.

Q: What objections are raised regarding offense variable 19?

Both defendants dispute the scoring of this variable, which addresses interference with the administration of justice. They argue that the allegations of attempting to avoid arrest or interfere with the process are false and part of a narrative perpetuated by the prosecution and media.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Mrs. Crumbley objects to the pre-sentence investigation report (PSI), citing inaccuracies in the narrative summary and descriptions of the offense.

• Both defendants object to the scoring of offense variable 7, which considers the number of deaths, arguing that Mr. Crumbley's actions cannot be attributed to multiple acts of gross negligence.

• Mrs. Crumbley challenges the scoring of offense variables 9, 13, and 19, arguing that her actions did not demonstrate intent to kill or injure, interference with the administration of justice, or threats of physical harm.