Oxford Shooter asks the Court of Appeal for the chance to change the judge's decision

The Oxford High School Shitcare asked the Michigan Court of Appeal to review Requests to withdraw his guilty plea or to be resentful After a judge in Oakland County He refused to do none.

Ethan Crumbley’s appeal lawyer, Jacqueline Ouvry, wrote that his legal team during his cause had failed to properly investigate the attenuation factors before Crumbley pleaded guilty to kill four classmates and injured others. And others and a teacher and that the judge of the Circuit Court in Oakland County, Kwame Rowe, did not have all the information on the attenuation of factors before Crumbley’s sentence without freedom in prison.

“Failure to comply with an attenuation investigation or keeping a specialist created a snow ball effect that affected each portion of the Miller hearing and every problem Ethan raised Grant Crumbley to call.” A attenuation investment the defense team would be driven to the right experts who were needed to give the circuit court a complete image of Ethan. “

Crumbley, who was 15 years old at the time of the 2021 shooting at Oxford High School, was guilty in October 2022 for killing four classmates: Tate Myre, 16 years old; Madisyn Baldwin, 17 years old; Hana St. Juliana, 14; And Justin Shilling, 17 years old. He was also guilty of hurting six other students and a teacher. Currently serves an Life conviction without the chance of conditional freedom.

Rowe refused Crumbley’s post -convenient requests December 19 Without a hearing to determine if Crumbley had inefficient lawyer assistance, without allowing Crumbley’s lawyer, Jacqueline Ouvry to present additional and without oral arguments heard.

“The court finds that the lawyer’s lawyer was not inefficient, because the defendant did not actually provide any predicate for his requests,” Rowe wrote. “In addition, the defendant did not show that there is a reasonable probability of a different result, but for the alleged errors of the lawyer’s lawyer. The court finds that the sentence of the defendant is constitutional and proportional to the seriousness of the crime and the offender.”

Rowe found that Ouvry had violated the court rules Because he did not ask for permission to exceed the limits of the page before submitting a long motion and said he would not accept any additional information. Ouvry opposed this, saying that these sanctions are inadequate and Rowe did not have the authority to impose them, but Rowe denied her review in November.

Ouvry said that Rowe misunderstood the questions he asked and applied the law by a “defective evaluation of Ethan’s youth characteristics.” She also said that she had abused her discretion in the refusal of the call exemption when there is “substantial evidence of inefficient assistance of the lawyer”.

But Prosecutors told Rowe In their response to Ouvry’s initial movement that the shooter’s statements were “without merits” and “empty”.

Even if the lawyers’ lawyers had provided some of the new appeal lawyers, they said they had, “they would not have made a difference in the proportionality of his sentence or as a result of the conviction,” Wrote the assistant prosecutor Joseph Shada.

“Empty claims are insufficient to fulfill their heavy burden in establishing a factual predicate, deficient performance and prejudices,” said Shada. “In the range of defenses to choose from – including a defendant tries to say now – judgment – none of them escape that this offender and his crimes deserve a life sentence.”

But Ouvry said that the deficient performance of Crumbley’s lawyers during the Miller hearing, in which Rowe heard evidence to help him decide whether a life -free life was constitutional and correct, prejudicated the result of Crumbley’s case .

Crumbley’s lawyers are supposed to have been ineffective, because they did not keep a specialist in mitigation or did not carry out an attenuation investigation; Have not been able to investigate or present evidence of the possible disorders of the fetal alcohol spectrum and Cognitive adaptive dysfunctions; And they did not prepare and directed the expert Miller properly, which made him inefficient in the confession about Miller factors, as he could not call them, wrote Ouvry.

McDonald said during his closure argument at Miller’s hearing that he fought with the decision to ask for life without conditional freedom and he was waiting for the defense to tell him something he did not know. But that didn’t happen.

“Even if the criminal prosecution had not been open to the negotiation, the lawyer would have carried out an effective attenuation investigation, the circuit court would have been presented with more than just Ethan’s mitigation,” wrote Ouvry. “If the lawyer’s lawyer had offered to the circuit court a complete image of Ethan’s fund, cognitive adaptive dysfunctions and family support, there is a reasonable probability that the procedure would have been different.”

Crumbley’s legal team also did not show any evidence at Miller hearing about Crumbley’s academic struggles and teachers’ concerns about intimidation in the middle school and about him being a single life, as well as concerns about At the disorder of the fetal alcohol spectrum, Ouvry wrote.

Ouvry described how Jennifer Crumbley drank at the wedding and the honeymoon while she was at the beginning of her son. She quoted a doctor who reviewed Ethan Crumbley’s history and found that there is sufficient evidence to “strongly support the probability” that her brain would be affected by Jennifer Crumbley’s alcohol.

Ouvry also quoted a report of two clinical psychologists who discovered that Expert Crumbley’s judicial lawyers used Dr. Colin King, He did not follow the best practices for medical -legal psychological assessments and said that his work was “essentially unrecognizable as an evaluation of Miller.”

He also found the blame with Rowe’s assertion that he was in part, following Crumbley Request for the sentence that the victims asked – which was almost exclusively life without conditional freedom – when he condemned Crumbley.

“Any sentence that you ask, please impose it on me, because I want to be happy and I want to feel safe and safe. I do not want to worry about them another day, because I am very sorry for what I did for what I took from them, “Crumbley He told his sentence of December 2023.

In the decline of Crumbley’s motion to be resentful, Rowe said that Crumbley has given up his right to a term of years with this statement. This was a mistake of law, Ouvry wrote.

“The court abused his discretion and made a mistake of law when he used Ethan’s expression, during allocating, as a renunciation of his legal rights. The resentment is necessary,” wrote Ouvry. “The language of Ethan’s allocation did not ask for any specific sentence, and neither was a renunciation of known and intelligent rights.”

Ouvry asked the Court of Appeal to grant Crumbley’s request for appeal leave. She also demanded that, alternatively, the court would reverse her life without conviction to conditional freedom; Allow Crumbley to withdraw its plea; Send the case back to the Court circuit for a new Miller hearing; Or send the case back to the Court Circuit for a probative hearing.

Ouvry asked that if the court sends the case back to Oakland County, it should be heard by another judge, because it is not reasonable to expect Rowe to set aside its previously expressed opinions.

“Despite the fact that they provided additional evidence and, despite the appeal counselor, asked to need more time to investigate, the court still had an incomplete image of Ethan’s life,” Ouvry wrote. “The court rejected Ethan’s motions and the counselor’s requests to develop registration, declaring that no new information would have counted.”

[email protected]