Evidence of Extramarital Affairs Brings Twist and ‘Changes’ Case Against Michigan School Shooter’s Mom, Prosecutor Says

Defendant Jennifer Crumbley exits the courtroom during her jury trial at the Oakland County Courthouse in Pontiac, Mich., on Jan. 31, 2024. Katy Kildee/Detroit News via AP, Pool

A twist in the involuntary manslaughter trial against the Oxford High School shooter’s mother in Michigan shook up the case, with the door made “wide open” for the prosecution to bring up details of the mother’s extramarital affair after being confirmed by a witness for the prosecution during arguments made in court on Wednesday, January 31, in Pontiac, Michigan.

In a lengthy cross-examination by the attorney representing Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of the then 15-year-old shooter, the affair was confirmed and became “fair game” according to the prosecution after the defense originally fought for the information not to be included in arguments.

The lengthy cross-examination by the attorney representing Mrs. Crumbley, Shannon Smith, led to an intense exchange between Smith and Oakland County Assistant Prosecutor Marc Keast that saw the jury excused briefly.

Mr. Keast said Ms. Smith was getting “dangerously close” to introducing evidence she had previously fought to keep from the jury.

“I have opened the door, and I want that door opened, and I want to fully examine this with this witness,” Smith said to the judge.

Smith said she had discussed the matter with Crumbley—who was then sworn in, stating to the judge that she trusted Smith and wanted the evidence introduced.

“At this point, her life is more important than her dignity in terms of… She had an affair. Lots of people have affairs. I mean, that’s the bottom line. At the end of the day, it doesn’t mean, you know, your kid’s a school shooter,” Smith said.

The Witness

Witness Brian Meloche, a firefighter and a friend of Mrs. Crumbley, was called by the prosecution to testify mostly regarding text messages exchanged between the two on the day of the shooting and up to the time Mrs. Crumbley and her husband were arrested in the days after the shooting.

He testified regarding certain text messages sent to him regarding the shooter on the day of the shooting, including that she was called to the school on the day of the shooting for a meeting with her son and school officials after the shooter was found to have drawn a gun and other disturbing things on a class assignment early in the day.

When asked if he was involved in an extramarital relationship with her, he agreed, and it was established he made this relationship known to authorities in the three interviews he had with them in the time since the shooting.

He maintained generally that his relationship with Mrs. Crumbley occurred in the mornings during weekdays or schooldays, and Mrs. Crumbley’s son was not a topic of much discussion.

Prior to the jury being briefly dismissed, it appeared Smith was alleging that Mr. Meloche was “threatened” in interviews with police to change his story to detail information less favorable to her client.

Mr. Keast said that Smith had accused two veteran officers of threatening Me. Meloche, when he said he did not feel threatened.

“I’m not going to let you let the jury think that the police threatened him or did something to make him say something he didn’t mean just to avoid repercussions to him, whether it’s employment wise or personally,” Judge Cheryl Matthews said prior to allowing Smith to continue and bringing the jury back in.

Through additional questions, Mr. Meloche said he believed there had been “veiled threats” made that the information, which he noted was now out in public, could become public, and no threats were made against his employment.

He also explained that his opinion on the matter had changed from his first interview to his third after receiving more information on the case and seeing more details emerge through media reports.

It was also noted prior to Mr. Meloche being dismissed that he was caught off guard by the affair being brought up in the testimony, as he was informed in his subpoena to testify that it would not be a line of questioning, according to the prosecutor.

Mr. Keast asked him if it was fair to say he was not happy about having to testify, to which he replied, “Yes.”

He then asked what the point of extra details about the affair being withheld from police was, to which he replied he was trying to protect his family, his wife and other people in his life.

Mr. Keast said the fact of the affair now being fair game in the trial, in which the prosecution has sought to paint Mrs. Crumbley as an inattentive mother who was grossly negligent and derelict in her duty as a parent, was something that “changes the entire case.”

“Then the door is wide open for the people,” Mr. Keast added, noting the affair would also be “fair game” in later questioning of Mrs. Crumbley herself if she takes the stand in her own defense.