Oxford Shooter asks the appeal court about the chance to change the judge’s decision
8 mins read

Oxford Shooter asks the appeal court about the chance to change the judge’s decision

Oxford High School shooter has asked Michigan Court of Appeals to review his inquiries to withdraw their owed foundation or annoyed After a judge in the Oakland County refused to do either.

Ethan Crumbley’s Appellate Attorney Jacqueline Ouvry wrote that his legal team failed to investigate intermediary factors before Crobley invoked four classmates and injured six others and one teacher, and that Oakland County Circuit Court Kwame did not have all all they had all all all of them killed all all they all had all all all of them killed all all of all all they killed all all they had all all of all they had all all of them killed all those Had all they killed all the judges Kwame Rowe. Information on mitigating factors before judging crumbs to life without parole in prison.

“The failure to conduct a mitigation investigation or retaining a limitation specialist created a snowball effect that affected every part of the Miller negotiation, and every question that Ethan raised in his proposals after control,” Ouvry wrote in his request Thursday to the Grant Crump’s appeal court to appeal. “An investigation of mitigation would have led the defense team to the right experts necessary to give Circuit Court a complete picture of Ethan.”

Crobley, who was 15 years old at Skytte in 2021 at Oxford High School, invoked guilty in October 2022 to kill four classmates: Tate Myre, 16; Madisyn Baldwin, 17; Hana St. Juliana, 14; and Justin Shilling, 17. He also relied on having injured six other students and a teacher. He is currently serving a Lifetime sentence without a chance to do that.

Roots denied Crumple’s post -conflict requests December 19 Without a hearing to determine whether Crumbly had ineffective assistance from counseling, without allowing Crumbly’s lawyer, Jacqueline Ouvry to submit further information and without hearing oral arguments.

“The Court finds that the trial lawyer was not ineffective because the defendant has failed to provide something actually preached to his claims,” ​​Rowe wrote. “In addition, the defendant has failed to show that there is a reasonable probability of another result, but for the alleged error of the trial.

Roots found that ouvry was breaking against the court rules Because she did not ask for permission to exceed the side boundaries before submitting a too long movement and said he would not accept any additional panties. Ouvry objected to this and said that these penalties were inappropriate and Rowe did not have the authority to force them, but Rowe denied her proposal for reconsideration in November.

Ouvry said that Rowe misunderstood the questions she asked and applied the law through a “incorrect evaluation of Ethan’s characteristics of adolescents.” She also said that he abused his space for discretionary assessment of denying appeals when there was “significant proof of ineffective assistance from counseling.”

But Prosecutor told Rowe In its response to Ouvry’s original movement that the shooter’s claims were “meritless” and “hollow.”

Although Sagittarius’s lawyers had provided some of the new evidence that lawyers said they had done so, “it would have made no difference in proportionality in his punishment or the result of punishment,” Assistant Prosecutor Joseph Shada wrote.

“The hollow claims are insufficient to meet his heavy burden to establish an actual preach, inadequate performance and prejudice,” wrote Shada. “In the range of defense to choose from – including one defendant, trying to claim now aftermath – none of them avoid the fact that this criminal and his crime deserve a lifetime sentence.”

But Ouvry said that Crumbley’s lawyers were lacking during the Miller negotiation, where Rowe heard evidence to help him decide whether a life without Parole penalty was constitutional and fair, the results of Crumble’s cases.

Crumbley’s lawyers were allegedly ineffective because they did not maintain a limitation specialist or conduct a mitigation investigation; They failed to investigate or present evidence of possible foster alcohol spectrum disorder and crumbly’s cognitive adaptive dysfunctions; And they did not prepare and direct his Miller expert properly, which made him ineffective when he testified about the Miller factors, because he could not name them, Ouvry wrote.

McDonald said during her closing argument at the Miller negotiation that she struggled with the decision to ask for life without Parole, waiting for the defense to tell something she did not know. But that didn’t happen.

“Although the prosecution was not open to negotiations, lawyers had carried out an effective investigation of the restriction, the circuit court would have received more than just a record of Ethan’s mitigation,” Ouvry wrote. “If the trial council had provided Circuit Court with a complete picture of Ethan’s background, cognitive adaptive dysfunctions and family support, there is a reasonable probability that the procedure would have been different.”

Also, Crumbley’s legal team presented any evidence at the Miller hearing on Crumple’s academic fighters and the teachers’ concerns about bullying in high school, and that he was a lonely throughout his life, as well as concerns about the fetus’s alcohol spectrum disorder, Ouvry wrote.

Ouvry described how Jennifer Crumbly drank heavily at her wedding and honeymoon while she was early in her pregnancy with her son. She quoted a doctor who reviewed Ethan Crumbley’s history and found that there was enough evidence to “strongly support the probability” that his brain was affected by Jennifer Crumple’s alcohol use.

Ouvry also quoted a report by two clinical psychologists who found it Expert Crumbley’s trial lawyers used, Dr. Colin King, did not follow the best practice for forensic evaluations and said that his work was “essentially unrecognizable as a Miller evaluation.”

She also found errors with Rowe’s statement that he partially followed Crobley’s request for punishment that the victims asked for – As almost exclusively, life was without parole – when he sentenced Crobley.

“Every sentence they ask for, I ask you to put it on me, because I want them to be happy and I want them to feel safe and secure. I don’t want them to worry about another day, because I’m really sorry for what I have done for what I’ve taken from them, “Crumble said at his judgment in December 2023.

In falling crumbbley’s movement to be delayed, Rowe said that Crumbly waived its right to a penalty of a year with this statement. This was a mistake of the law, Ouvry wrote.

“The trial abused its space for discretionary assessment and made a mistake by the law when it used Ethan’s expression to come under the allocation as a waiver of his legal rights. Rebuse is required,” wrote Ovry. “The language in Ethan’s allocation did not ask for a specific meaning or represented a feeling and intelligent waiver of rights.”

Ouvry asked to the appealed court, Crumbly makes a request for appeal. She also asked that the court on the alternative turns her life without Parole penalty; Let Crumbley withdraw its foundation; Send the case back to Circuit Court for a new Miller negotiation; Or send the case back to the Circuit Court for a hearing of proof.

Ouvry asked that if the court sends the case back to the Oakland County, it would be heard by another judge because it is unreasonable to expect Rowe to set aside their previously expressed opinions.

“Although they have received additional evidence, and despite the fact that the appeal lawyer urged that they needed more time to investigate, the court still had an incomplete picture of Ethan’s life,” Ovry wrote. “The court denied Ethan’s proposal and the lawyer’s request to develop the post and explained that no new information would have played any role.”

[email protected]