1/13/2025 8:32 AM ig Oakland County Clerk ir 8 3 @ 2 o 3 oO oe a w = irae STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COU ‘Y OF OAKLAND PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, Case Nos: 2022-279990-FH Hon. Cheryl A. Matthews vs. JENNIFER LYNN CRUMBLEY, Defendant. KAREN D. McDONALD (P59083) MICHAEL R. DEZSI (P64530) Oakland County Prosecuting Attomey Law Office of Michael R. Dezsi, PLLC 1200N. Telegraph Road Attomey for Defendant-Appellant West Wing ~ Bldg 14 E 1523 N. Main St. Pontiac, MI 48341 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 858-0656 (313) 757-8112 Office DEFENDANT JENNIFER CRUMBLEY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND/OR FOR NEW TRIAL By and through her counsel, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. DEZ: , PLLC, Defendant JENNIFER CRUMBLEY files her instant Reply in support of her Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and/or for New Trial. In further support of her motion, Defendant submits the accompanying Reply Brief.REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT. OF ACQUITTAL AND/OR FOR NEW TRIAL A. The prosecution’s secret Proffer Agreements were required to be turned over to the defense under MCR 6.201, In its Response Brief, the prosecution contends that it was not required to tum over the Proffer Agreements with its two star witnesses because, according to the prosecution, “[t]here was no agreements for testimony in connection with this case, and the language in the proffer agreements confirms that.” (Prosecution Brief, pg 2). The prosecution’s assertion is easily disproved by the plain language of the Proffer Agreements, In fact, the expressly stated purpose of the proffer agreement was to, “receive truthful information from your client, including information about possible criminal activity by your client” and “to evaluate your client's credibility as a source of information and potential witness.” (Def’s Ex A and B, Proffer Agreements, pg | or 4, § 2 (emphasis added). As the express language of the Proffer Agreement makes clear, it was entered into with goal of evaluating Hopkins and Ejak as a “potential witness” at trial Nor should the Court find persuasive the prosecution’s argument that, “[iJt is standard part of trial preparation” to interview “potential witnesses.” (Prosecution Brief, pg 2)(citing to M Crim J15.3). The prosecution's argument on this point is a total red herring. The issue is not whether the attorneys are permitted to meet with and interview witnesses. Rather, the issue is that the prosecution entered into written “agreements” with witnesses who did, in fact, testify during the trial and the prosecution kept those agreements secret despite the prosecution's unequivocal duty to provide such agreements to the defense under MCR 6.201 The prosecution also suggests that the proffer agreements do not fall within the purview of MCR 6.201 because, according to the prosecution, the instant proffer agreements did not providefor immunity of any kind and “[nJothing was given to the witnesses[.]” (Prosecution Brief, pg 3). This assertion too is easily disproved by the plain terms of the agreement. Specifically, paragraph 6 of the proffer agreements expressly prohibits the prosecution from using, “any proffer statement se. made by you or your client in this office’s. hief in any criminal prosecution of your client. Def Ex A and B, Proffer Agreements, pg 2, § 6(a). In other words, while the Proffer Agreements do not provide for derivative-use immunity, the agreements did convey limited-use immunity for any statements made during the proffer session ‘The U.S. Department of Justice explains in one of its Prosecution Manuals, “[p]roffer or “queen for a day’ letters ate written agreements between [] prosecutors and individuals under criminal investigation that permits these individuals to tell the government about their knowledge or crimes, with the supposed assurance that their words will not be used against them in any later proceedings.” U.S. Dep't of Justice Gang Prosecution Manual, pg 66 (found at hips://nationalgangeenter.ojp.gov/) (last visited 1/11/25)(further explaining how a proffer or “Kastigar’ letter ordinarily confers limited-use immunity but not derivative-use immunity), No matter how hard the prosecution tries to assert otherwise, it is beyond dispute that the plain terms of the Proffer Agreements in this case did, in fact, convey limited-use immunity but not derivative- use immunity, In sum, the prosecution agreed to give up the right to use in its case-in-chief any statements made during the proffer session, while the prosecution expressly retained the right to use such statements during sentencing, Based on these provisions, the prosecution did, in fact, enter into an agreement with these witnesses whereby their proffer statements could not be used against them in a possible criminal prosecution. This is use immunity plain and simple, and MCR 6.201(B)(5)expressly requires the prosecution to tun over any “grant of immunity, or other agreement for testimony in connection with the case.” The prosecution also makes the halfhearted assertion that the Proffer Agreements did not create any motive or bias on the part of the two school officials to cooperate or testify. Prosecution Brief, pg 7 (the alleged motivation for bias exists with or without the proffers). Like its other arguments, this assertion rings hollow. According to the prosecution, any alleged motive on the part of Hopkins and Ejak “would exist with or without a proffer agreement[.]” Not so. As the Proffer Agreements make clear, both Hopkins and Ejak faced potential criminal liability for their acts and/or omissions leading up to the shooting. See Def Ex A and B, Proffer Agreements, pg 1, 2 (explaining the purpose of the proffer agreement was to receive truthful information about possible criminal activity by your client and others and “in return” the prosecution would consider the witness’s statements in deciding how to resolve this investigation as it relates to your client and any charges pending against your client being prosecuted by this office.”), Facing the prospect of criminal liability, these witnesses had every reason, motive, and bias to cooperate with the prosecution including by offering inculpatory testimony du ing Mrs. Crumbley’s trial to save themselves, Try as they may, the prosecution’s attempt to do nplay such an obvious motive or bias on the part of Hopkins and Ejak is simply disingenuous. ‘The prosecution’s intentional suppression of its secret Proffer Agreements undermines the entire trial and verd this case. It should be highlighted that the prosecution's suppression of the Proffer Agreements was neither accidental nor an oversight. Rather, it was intentional. In light of the intentional nature of the prosecution’s discovery violation, a judgment of acquittal is the most appropriate remedy,B, Michigan law recognizes no legal duty upon which to premise the prosecu involuntary manslaughter charges against Mrs. Crumbley for the intentional, criminal acts of her son who was charged, convicted, and sentenced as an adult. In response to Defendant’s argument that she owed no legal duty upon which to premise her charges for involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution makes inconsistent assertions as to the nature and origins of such a duty, The prosecution first asserts that, “the crime of involuntary manslaughter does not require a legal duty in every scenariof,}” (Pros Brief, pg 13). The prosecution goes on to state that, “the elements under the lawful-act theory does not contain the existence ofan additional, independent legal duty.” /d at pg 14-15. The prosecution then qualifies its argument by stating that there is no duty “besides the general duty of one to use ordinary care to avoid injury to another[.]” Jd at pg 15 nl6, Adding to these conflicted statements, the prosecution then asserts that “the lawful act theory of involuntary manslaughter... is always going to have such a duty at play. . [bJut no independent legal duty beyond this general duty is required.” id. So while the prosecution attempts to move the goal posts, they do concede that the element of “duty” in some form is required under either of its alternative theories of involuntary manslaughter. Without a duty, these charges cannot stand. On this point, it is worth repeating that there is no binding precedent in Michigan from which to find that Mrs. Crumbley owed any legal duty to protect the victims (or the public at large) from the intentional, criminal acts of her son. See Ross v Glaser, 220 Mich App 183, 186-87 (“Generally, with respect to nonfeasance, there is no legal duty that obligates a person to aid or protect another.”); see also Graves v Warner Bros, 253 Mich App 486, 493 (2002)(“‘an individual has no duty to protect another from the criminal acts of a third party in the absence of a special relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff [injured party] or the defendant and the third party.”). At present, this rule remains the law inMichigan and compels the conclusion that Mrs. Crumbley’s convictions for involuntary manslaughter cannot stand under either theory of liability advanced by the prosecution, Nor should the Court be persuaded by the prosecution’s attempt to bolster its duty argument based on the prior decision of the Court of Appeals. See Pros Brief, pg 16-17 (citing to Crumbley, 346 Mich App at 172-76), Contrary to the prosecution’s contention, the Court of Appeals did not address or focus on the issue of duty, but rather on the element of proximate cause. The elements of duty and proximate cause are markedly distinct such that the Court of Appeals’ opinion offers ‘no support for the prosecution’s duty argument. The prosecution also argues that Mrs, Crumbley owed a legal duty as the shooter's parent and relies on the duty imported from cases involving claims of negligent parental supervision However, as set forth in Defendant’s motion, the duty imposed in negligent parental supervision dealt with situations where a parent failed to control a child “too young to understand danger.” In those circumstances, our courts have imposed a duty upon a parent to “control their minor child” from harming others, but such a duty was limited to preventing foreseeable accidents, not a duty to prevent intentional, criminal acts. And contrary to the prosecution’s argument, a mere familial relationship alone does not create a legal duty. See discussion and cases cited in Defendant’s Motion for Acquittal, pg 20-21 In an attempt to sidestep the law holding that a person like Mrs. Crumbley owes no legal duty to prevent the intentional, criminal acts committed by a third party, the prosecution contends that the Court should not look to “caselaw involving third-party adults.” (Pros Brief, pg 18)(italics in original). But that is exactly the situation here where the prosecution did, in fact, charge Mrs. Crumbley’s son as an adult. By charging, convicting, and sentencing her son as an adult, the prosecution cannot, at the same time, expect that the court will treat the shooter as a child forpurposes of imposing criminal liability against his mother. The prosecution cannot have it both ways, and there is simply no way to reconcile the inconsistent legal theories created by the prosecution’s unfounded charges against Mrs. Crumbley, In truth, the prosecution is asking the court to recognize, for the first time ever, a new duty imposed on a mother to prevent injury to others arising from the intentional, ctiminal acts of her son. Simply stated, the prosecution is advancing a new policy argument never before recognized by our courts. And what the prosecution’s case lacks in the law they have attempted to make up for in the court of public opinion As the attached documents demonstrate, the prosecution engaged high-priced public relation firms to run what could best be described as a smear campaign against the Crumbleys. (Exhibit N, Contracts with Moment Strategies, dated January 1, 2022). “In the hours following the incident, Identity was retained [by the prosecution] to manage and coordinate the media” to “shape positioning on the tragedy, crafting statements and messaging[.]” (Exhibit O, Excerpts from Identity’s website). In addition to the retention of the public relations firm Identity, weeks after the shooting the prosecution spent $100,000 of taxpayer money to retain Moment Strategies, LLC, a second public relations firm whose stated goal was to “implement a national communications strategy” and to provide “crisis communication . . . to each group of key stakeholders.” (whatever that means\Exhibit P, Excerpts. fom = Moment — Strategies website hittps://www.momentstrategies.com/our-work/ocpo) (last visited 1/12/25). The prosecution also invited journalists from high-profile media outlets to shadow their trial preparation with the aim of publicizing their efforts and shoring up support for a “brand-new way of approaching school shootings.” (Exhibit Q, Letter from ABC News Senior Producer EileenMurphy). In another agreement dated August 12, 2022, the prosecution agreed to grant behind the-scenes access to a reporter from the Washington Post, “for the purpose of documenting the progress of the prosecutions related to the Oxford High School shooting.” (Exhibit R, Media Agreement). Itis also worth noting that the prosecution’s public smear campaign against the Crumbleys was undertaken despite the court's multiple orders prohibiting pre-trial publicity. See Exhibit S. Gag Orders). As these documents make clear, the prosecution picked public relations firms who would promote the prosecution's narrative and allow their handpicked journalists and media organizations into their inner workings. In sum, the prosecution invested itself heavily into creating public support for these charges which have no basis in the law. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF For the reasons set forth in her Motion and instant Reply, the Court should grant Mrs. Crumbley’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, or alternatively for a New Trial Dated: January 13, 2025 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. DEZSI, PLLC, A/Michael R. Dezsi MICHAEL R. DEZSI (P64530) Attomey for Defendant Jennifer Crumbley 1523 N. Main St. Royal Oak, MI 48067 (IB) 757-8112PROOF OF SEI Thereby certify that on this 13th day of January 2025, a copy of the foregoing document was filed with the Clerk of the Court and served upon all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system to their respective email addresses on file 4/ Michael RL MICHAEL R. DEZSI (P64530) Law Office of Michael R. Dezsi, PLLC 1523 N. Main St. Royal Oak, MI 48067 (313) 757-8112 [email protected]STATE OF MICHIGAN E CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COU! 'Y OF OAKLAND PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, Case Nos: 2022-279990-FH Hon, Cheryl A. Matthews vs JENNIFER LYNN CRUMBLEY, Defendant, KAREN D, McDONALD (P59083) MICHAEL R. DEZSI (P64530) Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney Law Office of Michael R. Dezsi, PLLC 1200 N. Telegraph Road Attorney for Defendant-Appellant West Wing — Bldg 14 E 1523 N. Main St. Pontiac, MI 48341 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 858-0656 (313) 757-8112 INDEX OF EXHIBITS Description Date A Nick Ejak Proffer Agreement; 12/29/2021 B Shawn Hopkins Proffer Agreement; 01/05/2022 c Defendants Demand for Discovery: 12/08/2021 D Oakland County Prosecutor's Press Release; 03/20/2024 E Legislative History; 04/15/2024 F Guidepost Solutions, LLC Report; 11/30/2021 G Unpublished Opinion, People of the State of Michigan vs. Hakeem Al-Hisnawi-Salman, MI COA Case No. 326445; 09/13/2016 H Unpublished Opinion, People of the State of Michigan vs Travis Lydell Causey, MI COA Case No. 352550; 03/04/2021 1 Unpublished Opinion, People of the State of Michigan vs James Anthony-Willie Cross, MI COA Case No. 295549; 06/23/2011Unpublished Opinion, People of the State of Michigan vs. Jason Lamar Clark, MI COA Case No. 293581 04/12/2011 Unpublished Opinion, People of the State of Michigan vs. Judy Katherine Higley-Zuehlke, M1 COA Case No 337332; 06/22/2023 Unpublished Opinion, Stephanie Whit, etal, vs. John Kaplan, et al., M1 COA Case No. 185673; 03/21/1997 Unpublished Opinion, People of the State of Michigan vs Donald John McConnell; MI COA Case No. 359358: 03/21/2024 Oakland County Contract with Moment Strategies, LLC; 01/01/2022- 12/31/2022 Excerpts fiom Identity’s website, “navigating a national crisis” Excerpts from Moment Strategies website, “C: Oakland County Prosecutor's Office” se Study: Letter to David Williams, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, Oakland County from Eileen Murphy, ABS News Senior Producer, 06/02/2022 Pre-Trial Non-Publication Agreement from Oakland County Prosecutor's Office with John Woodrow Cox, Wayne County Prosecutor's Office; 08/12/2022 Gag Orders: Order Regarding Motion to Restrict Pretrial Publicity; 06/27/2022 Order Regarding Motion to Restrict Pretrial Publicity and 07/14/2022 Amended Order Restricting Pretrial Publicity 07/14/2022 Order Regarding Motion to Restrict or Limit Pretrial Statements By Prosecution 10/18/2022EXHIBIT NCONTRACT Dispatch via Print ‘contract 10 Page ‘9090000000000000000008856, tor 2 ‘Contract Dates FoR. Terms Siroweo2e to 120.2020 best Nero Executive Office Building 41 West Buyer Phone Em 2100 Portiac Lake Fd. ‘oueph P.Dant___248/866-0514_ dani @oakgovcom Lower Level Deserition: ‘Contract Maxie Waterford Ml 48328-0462 Proseettor Puble Reatons “ao.000 00 Main Phone 248/858-0511 www.oakgov.com/purchasing/ ‘foment Strategies LLC Vendor 19 9990030023 Alexis Wiley Phone: 313/510-7222 Alexis Wiley PO Box 15245. Fa [email protected] Devror MI 48215 ‘tax Exempt 10: 38-6004876 Line # tem Number omDeseription Category Co ftom UOM Contract Price 1 a09090000000085721 Prosecutor Public Relations 180140000 AMT 1.00 Inasmuch as no specie quantiies ae indicated on this contrac, tere is ne commitment involved by Oakland County ‘other than forthe payment of goods procured under the condons of this contract ‘Oakland County issues individual Purchase Orders on behalt of County Departments as authorization for tems ordered trom this contract. The individual Purchase Order numbers ae tobe used on al Involees, Ble of Lading, Shipping Documents and al correspondence relating to the Purchase Order Vendo shall submit an itemized invoice with amounts due and owing under Purchase Order, as of the date ofthe invoice. Involoes shall contain the flowing information: (a) County Purchase Order Number, (b) dates of Delverabes;(c)iteized ist of Deliverables; (4) Vendor Tax ID Number (federal and State); (e)loenses; and () any othe information requested by Purchasing, The County shall have no ‘bigation to make a payment under purchase order unt an invoice is submited inte frm get fort herein ana shall. have no cbligation io pay for Delverables, which have nol been invoiced (as required herein) within sixty (60) Days ot daivery “This contract noto be used forthe purchase of any equipment and or services not listed herein. Oakland County requies a 30 day wrtten notice ot al prce changes. Cakland County reserves the right to take advantage of any Special pricing programe avalable trom the contract vendor or any ole ouside vendors offering he sald special ‘ricing programs to Oaktand County during the term ofthis contract. ‘Oakland County reserves the right to cancel this contract it orders are nat filed within theme and in accordance withthe terms spectieg All shipments must be accompanied by Packing Sips and containers property marked with requesting Department Name, ‘adeéess, Contact Person and Purchase Order Number. ‘The prices indicated on this contact are not subject to change without written notification in advance. "No Charges wil be allowed tor boxing ox packing unless slated onthe Contract. Acceptance ofthis contract includes speaifieatons, process, delvery and conditions ncuded therein. Material 's subject inspecton on our property. iWrejected we agree to frst advise vendor before returning goods. Al eight and extra handing charges derved trom sald rejection shall be borne by the vendor. The acceptance of his contract does not in any way make the County of ‘Oakland a party to any ningement or damage suits. Such sults 1 be borne bythe vendor. ‘Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply wth al federal, state, and loca laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, neurance poley requirements, and requirements applicable to is actives under this Contact ncuding Zoning and bulding codes and MIOSHA guidelines ‘Contactar, and ts subcaractors under this Contact, shall not dscriminate agalnst an employee ar an applcant for ‘employment in hing any terms and conditions of empioyment or matters related to employment regardless of rac. clo. religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, age, genetic information, height, ‘Weight, isabity, veteran statu, tamil status, mattal status or any other reason, mats unrelated toe ‘person's abiltyo perform the dues of a partcular job or postion in accordance wih applicable federal and state fawe ‘A Materials Satety Data Sheet shall acoompany or precede al shipments of materials subject othe Michigan Hazard Communications Standard also known as the "Fight to Know Law and classed as hazardous by Michigan Compiled Laws, Act ‘54 ol the Public Acs of 1974 as amended. All containers shal have approved warning labels in accordance with this law. Copies of all MSDS's are o be sent tothe requesting department Pursuant to Act 167 ofthe Public Acts of 1983, the County of Oakland, a Michigan Consttutonal Corporation is exempt ‘tom the sales tax provisions of his Act. In adtion, the Michigan Department of Treasury has promulgated General andDAVID COULTER - OAKLAND COUNTY EXECUTIVE i. OAKLAND COUNTY PURCHASING DIVISION Executive Office Building 41 West 2100 Pontiac Lake Ra. Lower Level ‘Waterford Ml 48328-0462 Main Phone 248/858-0511 ‘wnvw. oakgov.com/purchasing/ Moment strategies LLC Alexis Wiley’ PO Box 15245 Detroit Mi 48215 ‘tax Exempt 10: 38-6004876 Line # tem Number omDeseription CONTRACT Contract 1D ‘9000000000000000000006556 Contract Dates ‘onor2022 to 1201/2022 Buy Phone Joseph P. Dahl 2481856-0514 Description: Prosecitor Public Relations Vendor 10 9000030023, 313/510-7200 Category Co F.08. Dest mal [email protected] ‘Contract Maximum "100,000.00 Alexis Wiley [email protected] tem UOM Contract Price Spectc Sales and Use Tax Rules which provide thatthe County of Oakiand isnot required 1 have a sales tax exemption number (R205.79, ule 29) FOR REPORTING PURPOSES - COUNTY OF OAKLAND 1D. #98-6004876W. 2ozeie2int CM Contract FinalzedEXHIBIT Onavigating @ naps, 1:26 9. CASE STUDY ®@identity ‘About Team Capabilities Expertise Case Studies Blog [ CONTACT > navigating a national crisis httpsfidentityprcomicase-stedyfnavigating-a-national-crisis! Page 10f5.navigating a nations ers - dentity naps, 1:26 9. On Nov. 30, 2021, just before 1 p.m,, authorities received the first 911 call reporting an active shooter at Michigan's Oxford High School. Eleven people had been shot, and ree students were reported dead day. As word of the tragedy quickly spread, the eyes of the nation turned to the small suburban town in Oakland County, Michigan, located 40 miles outside of Detroit. In the hours following the incident, Identity was retained to manage and coordinate the media and crisis, response to the tragedy. Identity immediately mobilized an expert integrated team of media and social ‘media strategists who would spend the next eight days providing counsel and coordinating responses to local, national, and global requests from journalists and newsrooms. Jes emerged as Identity drew on decades of crisis communications experience: to provide high-quality counsel and media training, navigating national, inbound media requests; to shape hitosfdentityprcomicase-stedyinavigating-a-national-risis! Page 2015navigating a nations ers - dentity naps, 1:26 9. positioning on the tragedy, crafting statements and messaging as events unfolded aligned with factual ‘moments in time; to interface with press contacts, engaging with professionalism and sensitivity; to "monitor and analyze the national conversation, using insights to advise on how and when to contribute, Success meant serving as a resource to the greater community during a time of fear, grief and great ‘uncertainty. This crisis moment was unlike any other in history for those involved, and the messages ‘communicated in the days that followed the Incident may forever change how the general public views school shootings. strategy for success Identity deployed the following strategies and tactics to navigate this national crisis near home media relations Within hours of the inc! dent on Nov. 30, Identity stepped in and began interfacing with the press and a i or cornments, Additionally, our team maved ta crafted an initial statement for distribution to national and local media contacts. Id entity manag inbound media requests and assisted with the planning and execution of two press conferences, inc maximizing space, creati security plan, and preparing identify journalists who wou id be key players in the news cycte, allowing Fo quick, effective decision making regarding how and when to engage with jour NN Ai alists and suring local perspectives were Don Lemon prioritized alongside high-profile national voices like ‘on Cooper ar ity n the week, including 40 interviews with anal contacts an 75 4. 2 INBOUND MEDIA REQUESTS INCIDENT MENTIONS TRACKED PRESS CONFERENC MANAGED IN THE FIRST 8 HOURS COORDINATED managed more than 75 one-on-one media interviews wit! d outlets, which fed the tens of thousands of media mentions. hitpsfidentitypr.comicase-stedyfnaigating nationsl-criss) Page 301 5navigating a nations ers - dentity naps, 1:26 9. social media & media monitoring Identity rapialy activated media monitoring and social listening tools, collecting tens of thousands of ‘mentions throughout the week and analyzing coverage to provide thoughtful counsel ‘The six reports delivered between Nov. 30 and Dec. 4 summarized all press coverage and digital discussions, which shaped how announcements were planned. By monitoring the national conversation, Identity provided thoughtful, relevant insight into how key political figures—and the general public—were ‘responding to the crisis, These reports also enabled Identity to provide necessary guidance for messaging themes, talking points and other preparatory documents, to support the prosecutor's office during this, tragic time. PUBLIC SOCIAL MEDIA HOURS OF PROFESSIONAL REPORTS DELIVERED IN. MENTIONS TRACKED WITHIN 12 SUPPORT. PERIOD HOURS. httpsfidentityprcomicase-stedyfnavigating-a-national-crisis! Page 4 of 5navigating a nations ers - dentity naps, 1:26 9. more case studies Cen ———r“ erhLhCe we hitosfdentityprcomicase-stedyinaigating-a-nat Page 50f 5EXHIBIT P(case Study: Oakland County Prosecutor's Otfice — Moment Stretegies suis, 6:04 PM Case Study: Oakland County Prosecutor's Office MEET THE MOMENT TEAM Overview itor momentstrategies.co(case Study: Oakland County Prosecutor's Otfice — Moment Stretegies ‘yas, 6:08 em Less than a month in office, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald, was faced with a horrific high school mass shooting in her district. The case received intense nationwide attention and it was extremely important that Oakland Count support the victims and families while upholding the law. Strategy Moment Strategies was brought in to create and implement a national communications strategy that addressed the national interest in the case, the community's right to be informed and the need to protect the integrity of the case and the victims. Result Moment Strategies helped the The Oakland County Prosecutor's Office (OCPO) provide timely crisis communication responses tailored to each group of key stakeholders. Working closely with OCPO, we orchestrated clear and consistent messaging for what became two different fast-paced, evolving legal cases as more information was discovered around the tragic high school shooting. The Prosecutor's office was able to establish a high level of trust and support from the community because of their ability to communicate the issues effectively and in how they were pursuing justice for all victims involved. Currently, Moment Strategies is working with OCPO to build its internal capacity by identifying a full- time communications manager. https momentstrategies.comfour-workfocpo Page 2 of 4(case Study: Oakland County Prosecutor's Otfice — Moment Stretegies suis, 6:04 PM Links Oakland County Prosecutor: Oxford shooting investigation requires ‘immersing yourself in a dark place’ (fox2detroit.com) Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald Calls for Tougher Gun Laws After Oxford » WDET 101.9 FM < Case Study: BasBlue [email protected] 2957 E. Grand BLVD Ste ites momentstrategies. com/ourwork/ocpo Page 30f 4(case Study: Oakland County Prosecutor's Otfice — Moment Stretegies ‘yas, 6:08 em 506, Detroit, MI 48202 https momentstrategies.comfour-workfocpo Page 4 of 4EXHIBIT QJune 2, 2022 David Williams Chief Assistant Prosecutor, Oakland County 1200 North Telegraph Pontiac, MI 48341 Dear David: As discussed, ABC News is very interested in following the team at the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office as they prepare their case against James and Jennifer Crumbley. Since 1999, children have committed at least 175 school shootings, according to a Washington Post analysis. Among the 114 cases in which the weapon's source was identified by police, 77 percent were taken from the child's home or those of relatives or friends. But itis. extraordinarily rare for parents to face charges related to heinous crimes allegedly committed by their children and no parent has ever been convicted of a homicide offense in connection with their child's mass shooting. Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald has stated that the case against James and Jennifer Crumbley has the potential to be consequential, “a brand-new way of approaching school shootings,” and one that may deter future ones. ABC News Studios, a division of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. would like to document the work of the team at the Oakland Gounty Prosecutor's office in this groundbreaking case for a documentary to air on ABC and Hulu. The program would provide a behind the scenes look at the first ever high-profile case against parents of a school shooter, the painstaking work behind this effort, and the pain and trauma experienced by the victims and families of those killed and injured in the massacre at Oxford High School, We will explore the full scope of the charges against Jennifer and James Crumbley, the broader challenges of stopping shootings and the toll these events take on everyone they touch. The Team: The production team will be led by two-time Emmy Award winner Cheryl McDonough who directed the documentary feature film “Parkland Rising” the Nat Geo series “Inside Out with Katie Couric” and the recent documentary series “March” for The CW. Cheryl is joined by Jake Lefferman who brings extensive experience on this subject through his work on Nightline and the documentary film "After Parkland’, which he co-directed. Per ABC policy, the team will be in close contact with ABC counsel and our Standards and Practices unit throughout the process to maintain the highest editorial standards and fairness. Access: Our team will work closely with David Williams and his team to make sure: ‘* All filming of the prosecution team will be discussed/scheduled in advance. We understand that our access is at the Prosecutor's office's sole discretion and thatfilming of personnel, premises, offices, and other Prosecutor's office facilities to record and photograph will require prior permission. ‘The team will step away and stop filming on request. '® There will be no recording of the prosecution team outside of public appearances and filming that has been approved by the Prosecutor's office. No hidden cameras will be used around prosecutors by any member of the ABC team, © ABC commits to using a very small team that will not unreasonably interfere with regular operations in the office and will comply with all reasonable directives and standard operating procedures. © We understand we may be privy to confidential information and will treat it with extreme discretion © We understand that the Prosecutor's office may issue to producers involved in this project for health, safety or security reasons, or for law enforcement deployment strategies, tactics and producers agree to adhere to these directives. sctives or restrict access Broadcast/Embargo: © ABC News will not air any footage, recordings, video/audio or share information obtained during the period of access with the Oakland County Prosecutor's office until after the trial or until the case is resolved through a plea deal prior to atrial, ABC News has a long history of covering sensitive, high profile cases. The most recent case that would be analogous to the Oxford shooting would be our award-winning documentary, “After Parkland.” The documentary followed students and families of Marjory Stoneman Douglas storme: 's High School in Parkland, Florida, in the days, weeks and months after a gunman sd into the school and killed 17 students and staff members. The filming was done by a very small team ~ at times a single producer with a camera ~ and in stages. It was a powerful, educational, and deeply personal look inside the lives of the students and families ‘who stood up to and demanded an end to the terrible toll being taken by gun violence. In addi mn to airing portions across all ABC News platforms, Freeform and ultimately as a feature film for Hulu, it was released in theaters across North America. The film first premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival to reviews that praised the film's intimacy and rare access, ‘Thank you for your consideration, entry Senior Producer/917-822-2460 @NEWS STUDIOSEXHIBIT RKAREN D. McDONALD Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Oakland County Michigan 1200 North Telegraph Road * West Wing, Building 14-F Phone: 248-858-0656 + Fax: 248-858-0660 Pontiac, Michigan David W. Williams, Chief Assistant Prosecutor August 12, 2022 John Woodrow Cox Via Electronic Mail Re: Non-Disclosure and Pre-Trial Non-Publication Agreement Dear Mr. Cox: ‘You have requested access to the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office for the purpose of documenting the progress of the prosecutions related to the Oxford High School shooting. Based ‘on your expertise and prior reporting you may, from time to time, and in the Prosecutor's sole discretion, be granted such access. Such access is contingent on and subject to your agreement that you will not publish anything related to these cases until they are concluded by jury verdiet(s), dismissal(s) and/or plea(s). You further agree that you will not disclose any non- public information to anyone until the cases are concluded. You acknowledge that you are aware of and have reviewed the Court's July 14, 2022 Amended Order Restricting Pretrial Publicity and you agree to abide by its terms. Your access may be subject to additional terms not set forth here. You recognize that the Prosecutor, in her sole discretion, may terminate your access at any time, and that you will remain bound by the terms above. Ifyou have questions or concems about any of the above, please call or email me. Sincerely, KAREN D, MCDONALD PROSECUTING ATTORNEY David W. Williams Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney By signing below, I acknowledge and agree to abide by the above terms a John Woodrow CoxEXHIBIT SEXHIBIT S-1STATE OF MICHIGAN CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND PEOPLE NO. 2022-279990-FH Plaintiff v HON. CHERYL A. MATTHEWS ‘CRUMBLEY,JENNIFER,LYNN, Defendant ORDER REGARDING MOTION Motion Title: [DEFENDANTS’] MOTION TO RESTRICT PRETRIAL PUBLICITY The. above named motion Granted M1For the reasons stated on the record... In ade : The defense may confer with their clients and the prosecution may confer with the victims and notify them about the progression of the case. The parties are permitted to confer with potential witnesses. However, all statements made about this case by the prosecution and its agents and the defendants and their agents, will be made solely to the court, whether on the record or in chambers with all parties present or in the form of properly filed pleadings, with service on all parties. Otherwise, no statements will be made by the parties or their agents. This includes all forms of media and public domains, which includes the internet. ITIS SO ORDERED.Dated: 6/27/2022EXHIBIT S-2STATE OF MICHIGAN CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND. PEOPLE NO. 2022-279990-FH Plaintiff v HON. CHERYL A. MATTHEWS. CRUMBLEY, JENNIFER, LYNN, Defendant ORDER REGARDING MOTION Motion Title: THE PEOPLE'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT'S JUNE 27, 2022 ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RESTRICT PRETRIAL PUBLICITY ‘The above named motion is: Granted In addition: The Court considered the above titled motion and the response and dispensed with oral argument pursuant to MCR 2.119(E)(3). The hearing scheduled for July 13, 2022, was cancelled. The Court will enter the proposed order attached to the motion. ITIS SO ORDERED. Dated: 7/14/2022HON. CHERYL A. MATTHEWS: CIRCUIT COURT JUDGESTATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, v CR 2022-279989-FH CR 2022-279990-FH HON. CHERYL A. MATTHEWS JAMES ROBERT CRUMBLEY, JENNIFER LYNN CRUMBLEY, Defendants. KAREN D. McDONALD (?59083) MARIELL R. LEHMAN (P74760) OAKLAND COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY ATTORNEY FOR J.R. CRUMBLEY 1200 NORTH TELEGRAPH ROAD 8113 WILSON STREET PONTIAC, MI 48341 SHELBY TOWNSHIP, MI 48316 (248) 858-0656 (586) 291-3414 SHANNON M. SMITH (68683) ATTORNEY FOR JL. CRUMBLEY 1668 S. TELEGRAPH RD., STE. 200 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302 (248) 636-2595 AME! ORDER RESTRICTING PRETRIAL PUBLICITY" Ata session of said Court, held in the Courthouse, City of Pontiac, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, on tbis_14 day of July 2022. PRESENT: HONORABLE CHERYL MATTHEWS CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE ‘This matter having come before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Restrict Pretrial Publicity and Emergency Supplemental Motion, and based on agreement from the prosecution, the Motion to Restrict Pretrial Publicity is GRANTED IN PART as set forth below. The Emergency Suy ;plemental Motion is DENIED. ' This Order amends the Court's June 27, 2022 order.IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, to protect the rights of the accused as well as the People toa fair trial, none of the parties, directly or through their agents, will engage in pretrial public: by making public statements about the case to the media (which includes all forms of media in the public domain, including social media and the intemet). For purposes of this Order, the term “public statement” means an extrajudicial statement that the party knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by the media while this order remains in effect. NOTWITHSTANDING anything else in this Order, this Order does not restrict the defendants’ right to confer with their counsel, confer with potential witnesses, and to consult with experts, nor the prosecution’ right to confer with potential witnesses, to consult with experts, and to communicate with victims, nor does it restrict compliance with the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 24; or the Crime Victim's Rights Act, MCL 780.751 et seg ‘THIS ORDER takes effect immediately and expires by its own terms upon resolution of both defendants’ cases by jury verdict(s), dismissal(s) and/or plea(s). THIS ORDER resolves the Motion to Restrict Pretrial Publicity and the Emergency Supplemental Motion in full. No costs, fees or sanctions are awarded to either side. THIS ORDER is entered solely for the purpose of protecting all parties’ right to a fair tial, and shall be so construed, DATED:EXHIBIT S-3STATE OF MICHIGAN CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND PEOPLE NO. 2022-279990-FH Plaintiff v HON. CHERYL A. MATTHEWS: CRUMBLEY JENNIFER,LYNN, Defendant ORDER REGARDING MOTION Motion Title: MOTION TO RESTRICT OR LIMIT PRETRIAL STATEMENTS BY PROSECUTION The above named motion is: Granted in part, denied in part In addition: The Court has considered the above titled motion, along with the response, and dispenses with oral argument pursuant to MCR 2.119(E)(3). In sum, the Defendants argue that the content of an email sent by the Prosecutor's Office to registered victims on September 15, 2022, violates this Court's order dated July 14, 2022 (Order) and exceeds the scope of what is required by the Crime Victim's Right Act (CVRA). The Defendants argue that the email contained unnecessary extrajudicial statements that disparage the Defendants. In response, the Prosecution argues that the CVRA does not contain language that restricts the Prosecution’s communications with the victims in any way and that it has not violated this Court’s Order. The Court’s Order states that “none of the parties, (..] will engage in pretrial publicity by making public statements about the case to the media. [...] For purposes of this Order, the term “public statement” means an extrajudicial statement that the party knows or reasonably shouldknow will be disseminated by the media while the order remains in effect.” The CVRA states in relevant part that “[u]pon request of the victim, the prosecuting attorney shall confer with the victim prior to the selection of the jury and prior to the trial of the defendant.” MCL 780.760. The Court's Order acknowledges the Prosecution's duty under MCL 780.760. Though the Court does not know the exact number of victims in this case, the Court agrees with the Prosecution that there are certainly far more than four. See MCL 780,752(1)(m). The Court is reluctant to restrict the Prosecution’s dissemination of important factual information to victims. However, the Prosecutor's Office should reasonably have known that an email sent to close to two thousand registered victims could be disseminated to the media, A portion of the communication that the Court intentionally declines to reproduce here, insinuates that the Defendants have a duty to come forth with evidence and/or that the Defendants carry a burden of proof. The ability to seat an impartial jury and conduct a fair trial in this jurisdiction will be an arduous task, and is an overriding and paramount concern. Misleading statements will likely diminish that ability. At this time, the Court is not sanctioning the Prosecution’s conduct but will reiterate what was previously stated on the record. The Court has an affirmative Constitutional duty to protect the rights of the Defendants, the People, the victims, and to maintain the integrity of these proceedings. There is an absence of authority to support the proposition that the CVRA requires @ mass communication each time some undetermined number of victims may be operating under some misapprehension. Although the Prosecution alleges that “responding timely to hundreds of calls and emails would be impossible”, the Court is hopeful that the Prosecutor's Office can employ a more surgical response in the future, should the need arise. The motion is granted in part and denied in part, in the manner set forth above. ITIS SO ORDERED. PH Isf Dated: 10/18/2022 Oct HON..CHERYL A. MATTHEWS: circuit COURT JUDGE