Sentencing of James and Jennifer Crumbley begins with discussion over presentencing report, scoring guidelines
(CBS DETROIT) - The sentencing of James and Jennifer Crumbley began Tuesday, with a discussion surrounding the prosecution's presentence investigation report.
Crumbley's history of substance abuse
Jennifer Crumbley's attorney, Shannon Smith, objected to the court records that say Jennifer Crumbley has a "substance abuse problem."
Smith claims the 18 bottles of whiskey and vodka purchased over a 26-period were bought before Thanksgiving, which the Crumbleys hosted at their house. Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews says she would allow the evidence of alcohol use to remain, but the statement referring to Jennifer Crumbley having a drug abuse problem could be removed.
James Crumbley's attorney, Mariell Lehman, brought up the substance use factor, and Matthews agreed to keep substance/alcohol abuse in for him, too, but said the investigation showed James Crumbley had used marijuana daily.
After that, Matthews clarified that victim impact statements will be made at once, but James and Jennifer will get individualized sentencing.
Mistakes in presentencing reports, defense attorneys say
Smith also said the probation office's summary of the trial has several errors and is biased.
Lehman added that the summary was written after Jennifer Crumbley's trial and seemed to have been done before James Crumbley's trial.
Matthews agreed but said the information was taken from police reports, according to standard procedure. Assistant Prosecutor Marc Keast disagreed and said it was taken from police reports.
No contact order
In addition, Matthews said the Michigan Department of Corrections will categorize the shooter and James Crumbley as "enemies," so they will not be housed in the same facility. Co-defendants are traditionally
Keast said that James and Jennifer Crumbley, and the shooter, shouldn't be allowed to communicate because the parents are co-defendants, and the shooter is related.
The probation office says there was no precedent for deciding on a no-contact policy for this type of situation, but Matthews says she doesn't see a reason for it, considering the co-defendants are opposite genders and won't be housed together, and the shooter and James Crumbley will also be housed separately.
Keast asked to address if the family would be allowed to visit with each other and communicate at a later time. Matthews agreed to this.
Scoring guidelines, arrest & James' jail calls
Smith and Lehman both objected to the scoring for the sentencing guidelines, claiming that there were not four separate criminal acts but four counts for the four deaths of the students.
Matthews says that the scoring was done correctly. The defense attorneys continued to voice their objections, but Matthews ruled that the scoring was done right.
Smith brought up the day the Crumbleys were found at the building in Detroit and said there is a "false narrative" surrounding that. She said that McDonald did not tell her about the charges before they were announced, and authorities didn't make arrangements for their arrest with her.
READ: Jennifer Crumbley wants to live in attorney's guest house during her sentence, prosecutors say
Matthews said authorities do not have to notify the defense attorneys about an arrest and that a prosecutor doesn't have to notify them about charges.
After this, Matthew reviewed testimony from when the parents were found.
Lehman is also disputing the fact that James Crumbley has physically threatened McDonald. She said he was angry and venting and included disrespectful language, but he never threatened harm toward anyone at the prosecutor's office.
READ: James Crumbley's threatening jail calls against Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald released
Keast read some of the statements that James Crumbley made during jail calls and also noted the father knew his calls were being recorded.
Matthews said this area was accurately scored regarding their avoidance at the building in Detroit. She also believes James Crumbley's calls were threats against the prosecutor.
