Jury Told The Wrong Law: Instruction Errors That Tilted The Verdict
Sharon says jurors were never instructed on the actual legal standard needed to convict a parent of involuntary manslaughter. The filing states jurors were allowed to return a guilty verdict without finding foreseeability or determining whether James had a clear legal duty to act.
Under Michigan law, a parent can only be convicted if they could reasonably anticipate their child would harm someone and fail to take action. But the defense says jurors were encouraged to convict based only on the horrific outcome, not the required proof of prediction.
The appeal states bluntly:
“The jury instructions failed to inform the jury that foreseeability is a required element of the offense.”
A Verdict Driven By Harm, Not Law
The filing argues the judge’s instructions enabled a conviction solely because the tragedy occurred, effectively bypassing constitutional protections. It states the jury was permitted to decide guilt on an “outcome-based theory of liability” that Michigan law does not support.
The brief further insists that jurors “were not instructed adequately on the duty element either.”
Without these two elements:
• No foreseeability proven
• No legal duty defined
There is no crime under Michigan law.
The Appeal Calls It a Structural Failure
The filing argues that because jurors were not given the correct legal roadmap, every interpretation of evidence was skewed toward guilt. It states:
“The jury was left to guess at the correct standard. This created a constitutionally intolerable risk of inaccurate conviction.”
That language is important — appellate courts treat “constitutionally intolerable risk” as a ground for reversal even without any other errors.
And this case has many.
The Law Requires Reversal If Instructions Are Wrong
Defense attorneys tell the Court of Appeals that faulty instructions require a new trial, regardless of other evidence presented. They cite precedent stating a verdict cannot stand when jurors “were permitted to convict without finding essential elements of the crime.”
Their bottom-line argument:
The jury may have convicted for not being a perfect parent,
rather than for committing a specific, defined crime.
That is not how American courts are supposed to function.
And if the instructions were wrong — the verdict must fall.
Discuss this explosive report on our Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1JLaQ6LKSS/
NEXT ➜ PAGE 11: SENTENCING BY OUTRAGE — PUNISHMENT BASED ON EMOTION, NOT LAW
On Page 11, we break down how the defense says James was sentenced for Ethan’s crimes, not his own. Sharon argues the judge allowed passion, grief and public anger to overpower constitutional limits, imposing a sentence meant to send a message instead of following the law. According to the appeal, James is behind bars today because a court punished a parent for the actions of a killer he did not and could not predict.
Click Page 11 to learn how the defense says outrage replaced justice at sentencing.