The State’s Contradictory Story: Mental Illness in One Courtroom, Bad Parenting in Another
James Crumbley’s attorney, Alona Sharon argues the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office changed its theory depending on which Crumbley was on trial, violating the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair prosecution. In the trial against James, prosecutors argued that mental illness was obvious and the parents ignored it. In Ethan’s Miller hearing, prosecutors argued the opposite: he was not mentally ill at all. That flip, the appeal states, is a Due Process violation.
The appeal cites federal case law condemning this kind of strategy, stating that the State “stacked the deck” in pursuit of convictions and that such tactics “render a trial fundamentally unfair.” The filing calls the Oakland County prosecution “gamesmanship that violates Due Process.”
For example, in James’ trial prosecutors introduced text messages to argue Ethan suffered from hallucinations and mental-health decline. Yet at Ethan’s own hearing, the State’s expert testified that he was not hallucinating near the time of the shooting and that she found it “highly unlikely” he ever experienced hallucinations.
Similarly, James was prosecuted for failing to seek mental-health care for Ethan. But in Ethan’s Miller hearing, prosecutors argued he showed no signs of mental illness and wasn’t suffering from any condition that required treatment. The expert testified that Ethan remained “future oriented”, continued enjoying hobbies, and maintained friendships.
In James’ case, the State argued that if his parents had gotten him help, the shooting never would have happened. But in Ethan’s case, the State argued that mental illness had nothing to do with the crime and that Ethan simply had “a desire to do bad” and committed murder for “pleasure.”
The appeal also points to the prosecution’s stark about-face on the issue of Ethan’s home life. In James’ trial, prosecutors painted a picture of a negligent, inattentive household. But in the Miller hearing, prosecutors admitted the opposite, arguing that Ethan had no trauma, citing evidence of “pleasant memories of camping with his parents” and positive family experiences.
These contradictions are not small discrepancies, the filing says. They strike at the center of the case. Prosecutors cannot argue mental illness existed in one courtroom and did not exist in the other simply to secure convictions against both father and son.
The appeal warns appellate judges that if such tactics are allowed, any defendant could be imprisoned not because the truth was proven, but because the State shaped different “truths” depending on its target.
Discuss this explosive report on our Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1JLaQ6LKSS/
NEXT ➜ PAGE 5: A TRIAL BUILT ON HALF THE TRUTH — THE JURY ONLY HEARD WHAT HELPED THE STATE
Page 5 exposes how prosecutors hid witness deals, blocked key impeachment evidence, and presented a version of events that the defense says was strategically one-sided. Sharon argues jurors were kept in the dark about the motivations and protections offered to the school officials who testified — information that could have changed how the entire case was viewed.
Click Page 5 to see how the defense says this verdict was won by suppressing the truth.