Gun Access: What Ethan Said vs. What the Jury Was Told
One of the core allegations in prosecutors’ case was that James Crumbley gave Ethan access to the Sig Sauer handgun used in the shooting. But the appeal argues that claim falls apart entirely under evidence the jury never heard — Ethan himself admitted he stole the weapon from where his father kept it locked and hidden.
The filing quotes Ethan telling evaluators that his father stored the guns inside a locked case and that James hid the case from him. Ethan said he took advantage of a moment when he was alone to find the gun and gain access without his father knowing, Attorney Sharon points out.
Defense attorneys argue this single fact — directly from the shooter — destroys the State’s reckless-storage theory. The legal claim in the appeal:
If a parent hides a gun, locks it, and the child surreptitiously defeats the storage, there is no crime.
The prosecution also suggested James encouraged his son’s fascination with guns. But the appeal points out that Ethan himself told evaluators the exact opposite — that his obsession with violence developed internally, not from anyone around him. As quoted:
“He was just born this way.”
That statement would have undercut every argument that James “should have known.”
Jury Never Told Where The Truth Came From
Prosecutors repeatedly highlighted Ethan’s journals and texts to imply James should have noticed signs of violence. But without Ethan testifying, jurors never heard:
• The writings were private
• Ethan hid them intentionally
• He lied to protect his secret
• None of those warnings were ever given to his parents
The defense says the State twisted hidden writings into imaginary warnings — and then blamed James for not seeing what was concealed from him on purpose.
A Case Built On Assumptions, Not Evidence
The appeal emphasizes that the State never proved James gave Ethan access, because Ethan’s own words prove the opposite. The brief argues that the only reason jurors didn’t learn this truth is because the trial court blocked the necessary testimony and psychological records that contained it.
Had the jury known Ethan:
• Stole the weapon
• Broke into a locked case
• Hid everything from his parents
— then the legal foundation of the storage and manslaughter charges crumbles.
This section of the appeal is blunt:
If the father didn’t provide access, there is no criminal act.
Discuss this explosive report on our Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1JLaQ6LKSS/
NEXT ➜ PAGE 7: FORESEEABILITY — IF TRAINED EXPERTS COULD NOT PREDICT THIS, HOW COULD A PARENT
On Page 7, we dig into the legal requirement prosecutors needed to meet: that James could have foreseen the shooting. The defense argues the exact opposite is true. Even the trained school professionals who met with Ethan that morning saw no threat at all. Sharon says the State is attempting to imprison a parent for not predicting the unpredictable.
Click Page 7 to see why this legal element may be the one that brings the conviction down.