tv Smerconish CNN December 4, 2021 6:00am-7:00am PST
wouldn't work here and won't be tried. i'm michael smerconish in phil. this week, germ maens announced a nationwide lockdown for the unvaccinated saying they will be banned from accessing all but the most essential businesses such as supermarkets and pharmacies. under the titan rules, unvaccinated people can only meet two people from another household. and bars and nightclubs must shut down in areas of high incident rate. that would never succeed in the united states with passions about vaccinations run deep and often divide along partisan lines. and probably is not worth the effort. such as the intensity here in the states when on thursday a government shutdown was averted despite bringing to a halt a bid to stop president biden's
vaccine mandates. and the president has continued with few tilt of trying to convince some in rural states to get vaccinated when he allowed the focus away from singular vaccination to testing. maybe there's an olive branch that might bridge our divide on the pandemic. buried in the report about germ macy's lockdown limiting the activities of the unvaccinated was his pretty significant caveat. the ban does not apply to those who have recently recovered from covid-19. basically, the lockdown is for those with no antibodies. and those who have had covid are treated the same as those who have been vaccinated. and it's not just germany. here's something that i did not that might come as a surprise to you, too. unlike here in the united states the european union and other countries have been affording the same privileges who have had covid-19, the same privileges as those who are fully vaccinated. among the countries that do,
austria, belgium, france, germany, greece, ireland, israel, netherlands, spain, switzerland, turkey, ukraine, the united kingdom and the vatican. you're wondering what does the science say? well, it's complicated. to a uk office of national statistics two doses of pfizer or astrazeneca provided a similar level of protection to prior natural infection when the delta variant was dominant. our own cdc study concurs that it shows that fully vaccinated individuals and those previously infected with sars covid 2 each have a low risk of subsequent infection. and saturday, the epidemiological analysis said this in a statement, population-level evidence
suggests that omicron variant is associated with substantial ability to evade immunity from prior infection. important to note none of that is peer reviewed. a microbiologist from reading said omicron has blown ahole that we should simply allow the infection to spread in an attempt to create immunity. should prior infection count when it comes to vax mandates? and is the science settled? and what do the europeans know that america does not or vice versa? i want you to go to my website and answer the question should prior covid infection count when it comes to vaccine mandates. joining me dr. gandhi. what do the europeans know that we don't or vice versa?
>> i don't think they know anything more than we know. i think there's what is e equipoise around it. what that means some show it's less than recovered versus getting the vaccine and some studies show the opposite. and essentially if you put all of the date data together the largest study showing that reinfection. israel gives their vaccine, only pfizer. and if you put all of the data together. and we've been accommodating data over 15 months probably would have been a situation where reinfection is equally as common if you've been previously infected versus having the vaccine. and i can certainly talk about the south africa situation. >> do talk about the south africa situation. i made a point of saying that is
not yet peer reviewed. but what is the latest? >> so what's very interesting, everything is so new with omicron variant. we barely have two weekends of data. the issue is why would recovery from infection be variable? it's actually variable because you can present with really severe disease, unfortunately, and then more durable immunity. you have stronger t-cells and have antibodies. then if you present with a more mild disease, the opposite is true, your antibodies come down more quickly. and the vaccine would be narrative. the vaccine astrazeneca does not rate as high in antibodies as mrna do. and then moderna is stronger than pfizer with higher dose and more saturation between doses. all of that put together is complicated, it's mixed. in south africa, the program started with astrazeneca vaccine at the beginning.
2 actually started much later than we did here in the united states. we don't have have even rates of vaccination in south africa. 23% now. fundamentally rates of previous infection were likely to be severe to younger population. so all of that makes it complicated. and it's been longer since people have had smir natural infection in south africa. finally, that paper you that just referenced, the data you just referenced there's no mention of protection against severe disease which we're beginning to understand. we're going to see a lot of reinfection, whether you're vaccinated, mild infection through the nose with endemic circulating high-level virus, we're going to see it. what's the protection against severe disease? that's the fundamental question. >> dr. gandhi, maybe i'm the outlier, i do read a great deal about these subjects. i was really shocked. i was reading this week about germany and their lockdown. and i saw that line, the line
said that folks who have -- in lay terms, the people who had covid were treated the same as vaccinated. kathryn, if you can put that map up of the world, i want to show it. if you look at the research and we saw how many european nations, the european union, the vatican treat you the same, but the united states does not. i don't understand the disconnect. can you state anything further on that? why are we not doing it -- and who has the right idea, us or them? >> i actually think europe does because you can't discount natural immunity. where you're in the state of the data where you're in a genuinely equal situation, some are a little better, some are this way, out essentially the same protection from specifically severe disease from having natural infection versus unvaccinated. you can't discriminate against those who have been recovered. and european nations are most loud because they know their
science. and they put all of their data together and they decided those who where had the same rights or those who were vaccinated. there's a lancet review published earlier this month that puts all of the data together, dr. krouser's data together, all of the immunological and includes if you're doing vaccine mandates you should allow those with prior immunity to count. and encourage immunity mandates like europe is doing. >> well, i want to have the conversation. i am here to have the conversation. i don't have your expertise. i just think it's right for dialogue, especially when we're so dug in. and maybe this is one way we can bridge the partisan divide on the issues. thank you, dr. gandhi, that was informative. >> thank you. >> what are your thoughts tweet me @smerconish or my facebook page. natural immunity is too variable when it comes to vaccines, a
false positive on a covid test no substitute for a shot in the arm. jon, i've heard that about the subject. you just heard what dr. gandhi said in contrast to that. she think it ought to be accounted for. one more. germans are a bunch of babies like meshes have turned out to be. david, it's not just germany, if it was, i'd say okay, united states goes one way, germany goes the other. you saw that list of countries that we have great respect for and do business with and tend to mirror everybody's policies. i want to know what everyone thinks. go to my website smerconish.com. should prior covid infection should it count when it comes to vaccine anmandates? still to come, james and jennifer crumbley william
arrested this morning in detroit. after their vehicle was spotted. they face charges of involuntary manslaughter. we will be covering that arraignment live. we'll do that in the next 25 minutes. and remember when getting paid for vaccinated? and now some are doing the office, getting fired for refusing. plus this week, an arizona shot nine times, after in a wheelchair, one experimenting with what they call shoot to incapacitate. and i will explain.
it's time for our cyber week special on the sleep number 360 smart bed. what if i sleep hot? ...or cold? no problem, the sleep number 360 smart bed is temperature balancing, so you both sleep just right. and it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. so, you can really promise better sleep? yes! you'll know exactly how well you slept, night after night.
this is your home. this is your family room slash gym. the guest bedroom slash music studio. the daybed slash dog bed. the living room slash yoga shanti slash regional office slash classroom. and this is the basement slash panic room. maybe what your family needs is a vacation home slash vacation home. find yours on the vrbo app. ♪ (vo) subaru and our retailers believe in giving back. that's why, in difficult times, we provided one hundred and fifty million meals to feeding america. and now through the subaru share the love event, we're helping even more. by the end of this year, subaru will have donated
over two hundred and twenty five million dollars to charity. this is what it means to be more than a car company. this is what it means to be subaru. jeff's been to the bottom of the ocean. the tops of mountains. and wherever this guy runs off to. a life well lived should continue at home. with home instead care, older adults can stay home, safe, and happy. home instead. to us, it's personal. these are the faces of listerine. the face of millions of germs zapped in seconds. the face of clean. the face of whoa! some are of intensity, others joy. all are of... various: ahhh... listerine. feel the whoa! so, you're looking at a live shot. that's the sheriff's office in oakland county, michigan, where
soon the arraignment for the parents of the michigan school shooter. at arraignment will begin. and when it does, we will carry it live. question, do police always have to shoot to kill? i've got a warning for you you're about to see a video that contains some disturbing images. all right. roll it. this week in tucson the police department moved to fire an officer in a day he fatally shot a man in a wheelchair. the man was suspected of stealing a toolbox from a walmart. he flashed a knife when challenged. and the officer carrying a taser opted to use his gunfiring nine times. the officer's lawyer said the taser wasn't an option and told richards' actions were to blame. officers are trained when they perceive a deadly 38, they're to fire multiple times. anytime a firearm is discharged it's considered a deadly force.
richards is just one of 6793 people shot to death by police in 2015. 49% of like him did not have a gun. if you've ever been on a gun range or seen one on tv, you likely see this classic target, it's this guy, hunched over, aiming at you, with his face at your chest. that's where they're taught to shoot. center mass, generally the torso. but training to save lives shoot to incapacitate was launched this february in la grangrange, georgia. la grange officers are now talking about when they think deadly force can be stopped they should aim for the legs and abdomen.
a man wielding a machete first fired a taser, and when that didn't work shot the man in the legs. the man survived, however the program has elicited scrutiny. and telling "the washington post" it's virtually impossible to implement and quote, opened pandora's box. joining me now is seth stoughton, say former police officer who actually took the training in la grange. he's a professor of law at the law school and evaluating uses of force. seth, what did you learn when you took the training? >> good morning. i learned that the training is nuanced and far more complicated than is often being reported. it doesn't apply to all use of force situations or all deadly force situations. it provides officers with an option that they are now formally allowed to consider in
certain narrow circumstances. >> is there a hypothetical that comes to mind where you could see this being implemented? >> yes, the training emphasizes that officers can use this new targeting, aiming at the upper legs, pelvis girdle or lower abdomen against someone for whom deadly force is authorized when that person has something other than a firearm. this would be a weapon like a knife or a club. and the best example that was used in the training that i went through was a situation when officers are confronting or interacting with someone over some period of time so they have the luxury, if you will, of being able to position themselves and take aim. think of a suicidal subject. he's holding a knife to their own throat and then rushes to the officer. in an appropriate situation, the officer may shoot to the pelvic girdle under this policy, as
opposed to center mass. >> if you shoot to the pelvic girdle or the groin or leg, that's deadly to me? >> it is still considered deadly force, it's not reduction in level of threat that the officer uses. it can still kill but according to medical experts who i've spoken to and who the la grange police department consulted with, it's less likely to be lethal, that is, has a lower mortality rate than shooting to the upper torso or the head. >> how practical is it, i would assume in the field when adrenaline is going and a member of law enforcement is confronting the situation where he or she is contemplating the use of deadly force. to now have the added situation of, i need to shoot him. where am i going to hoot him? i don't know, are they able to process all of that? >> not in every situation. and this is one of my big hesitations about the program. officers have to be very well trained and prepared.
and la grange police department does a pretty good job of that. but not every agency is going to prepare officers to make this type of difficult situation in what can be a time-pressured situation. there are concerns about whether officers will be able to make good decisions and whether they'll have the physical skills, the shooting kills, to be able to hit a target that is at least somewhat smaller than the tradition center mass target. >> certainly, i can understand the criticism from the member of law enforcement who i quoted a moment ago who said you're opening up pandora's box. because immediately once you authorize some form of force less than deadly, if you go down the road to shoot to incapacitate, you know in every circumstance, a police officer is going to be considered why did you shoot center mass. you should have shot the ankle instead. quick final comment from you. >> yeah, this is a very popular criticism and i think it both
makes sense but also more broadly applicable than it appears. that criticism could officers done something different applies in every shooting now. so the idea that it might continue to apply in future shootings doesn't seem of particular concern to me. >> well, we have a lab experiment of sorts in la grange, georgia. let's see what happens. thank you for being here seth stoughton. >> thank you for having me. >> via social media, via the world of twitter. what do we have, kathryn? you shoot to eliminate the threat, period. once the threat is stopped then you go into life saving mode. imagine a school shooter. drich, in your scenario, sadly very timely for the arraignment we're about to televise live, they're, you got to take out of threat. in a standoff situation.
we had a situation here in philadelphia, one year ago are, police arrive on a scene, it's a guy with a knife, a history of mental health issues. they don't have tasers, that was a shame. they end up shooting to kill. that's the kind of scenario i'm thinking of. was there an alternative where there was a little time to assess the situation. and maybe in a case like that they had the alternative. i want to remind you go to my website at smerconish.com. answer the survey question. should prior covid infection count when it comes to vaccine mandates? up ahead, following a manhunt the parents of michigan high school shooter ethan crumbley are now in custody. they face charges of involuntary manslaughter in their son's killing of four school mates. we'l'll carry their arraignment and do that live. make your nights anything but silent. and ride in a sleigh that really slays.
because in a cadillac, tradition is yours to define. so visit a cadillac showroom, and start celebrating today. ♪ ♪ hi sabrina! hi jen! hi. so you're the scientist here. i just have to ask. does my aveeno® daily moisturizer really make my dry skin healthier in one day? it's true jen. really?! this nourishing priotic oat formula moturizes to help prevent dry skin. one day? for real! wow! avee® healthy. it's our nature.™ i gotta say i'm ill impressed. very impressed. new daily moisture for face. everything you love for your body now for your face. ok everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. whoo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, now introducing ensure complete! with 30 grams of protein.
primatene mist opens airways quickly. get the #1 fda approved over-the-counter asthma inhaler. the parents of the michigan high school shooting suspect have been arrested overnight after a manhunt found them in detroit. james and jennifer crumbley were found on the first floor of an industrial building near where authorities located their car. their 15-year-old son ethan is charged with killing four students. the crumbleys were charged with involuntary smanslaughter where they likely gave the gun as a christmas gift. their transferred to the jail where their son is also being held. joining me is cnn legal analyst paul callan, he's a criminal defense attorney and former
prosecutor. you know, paul, in cases like this, i can hear myself doing the radio show. and the call comes in and it's someone who says, what about the parents? where were the parents? but this is pretty rare, isn't it that there actually would be a prosecution? >> it is, michael, it's very, very rare. especially on a fact pattern like this. in the past, i have seen parents charged but it tends to be a situation where the parent is a police officer, maybe a correction officer, doesn't secure his firearm back at his apartment or home. and a toddler gets ahold of the gun and maybe shoots another child that he's playing with. that sort of thing. that's the kind of reckless use charge that we customarily see. now, this is something very, very different. this is really involved the parents and being charged in connection with a mass shooting because of their own negligence in not securing their weapon from their own child. so, we haven't seen charges like
this in quite a paul. >> paul, i'm glad you used the word "negligence" because from my assessment of the time line, their behavior certainly seems negligent. but does it rise to the level of criminality? where i guess the issue was were they complicit in this case. can you flesh those notions out? >> yeah, it's a difficult concept that juries have to struggle with when they get cases like this. and criminal negligence really, as opposed to what we call ordinary negligence, in a car accident case, for instance. all right. you're driving fast. and you get in an accident. now, that's negligence, okay? but criminal negligence is a significant level above that. it usually is an act of reckless conduct or grossly negligent conduct. and the degree of negligence is so great that any ordinary person would perceive that engaging in such conduct might heard another human being. now, let's look at the facts here. the facts would be that the
parents knew he had this gun. as a matter of fact they had purchased this sig sour for him as a christmas present. two, the parents were aware he had prepared this bizarre note saying there would be blood everywhere. a picture of a gun in it. a picture of a person being shot. and the parents were called into the school and warned that something unusual was going on with the child. so there was awareness of a psychiatric problem. and it was kept in an area unlocked and it was in fact the child's gun. it seems to me they can make out this standard of criminal negligence with respect to this case. one thing i would throw into the hopper though, michael. causation. i was looking at the jury charge in michigan that is given to a jury when a case gets submitted to them. and the big thing is you have to prove that the action caused the death of all of the victims
involved. and i think juries may look at this and say, well, they were reckless. but can they be charged with actually causing the death. i think that's where defense attorneys might try to fight the charges when the case ultimately gets tried. >> and that's what i was getting to. and the question -- i have many, many questions. in fact, there's more unknown than known at this stage. on the top of this list is the question of, on the day they get brought into school, did they know he had the gun. about just, they purchased the gun for him but did they know he had the gun? paul, i don't know if you can see this, i'm going to put on the screen a time line and walk you through what you described. dad purchases the gun on the 26th. i think that's black friday. and then on the 29th, a teacher observes ethan searching ammunition in some kind of a google search. the school contacts the parents on that day. they don't get a reply.
the following day is comes what you referenced, ethan's teacher finds an alarming note. the parents are summoned to the school. they both come in. they resist taking him out of school. it's been a few hours and now there's a report of active shooting commenced. many mom texted the son, as i understand it, ethan, don't do it. as you scrutinize that time line what stands out? >> you know, several things. but most importantly, the parents knew that the gun was in their home and maybe in his backpack even when he went to visit the school, when the school complained. and it seems to be clear that he has psychiatric problems of some kind. there's one thing i would add to your time line, michael, and that is when the mother found out that the son had a problem at school, with respect to he was searching for ammunition, according to one of the teacher complaints on the internet.
and the mother texted back to him, to the child, laugh out loud, you have to learn how not to get caught. >> right. >> now, that seems a clear awareness of the presence of a firearm and sort of aiding and abetting the child. saying, don't worry about what the teachers are saying about your conduct here. >> okay. no doubt, and i'm not excusing that which is known thus far about the parents' conduct. but i then have to also ask the question, well, what about the school? because the school had a concern on one day as to him searching for ammunition. online. and then the following day there's such reason for concern that they bring the parents in. at what point does the school have to say, hey, ethan, you've got a backpack, what's in it. we need to take a look. we need to search your locker, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. was it the -- we're going to the arraignment now, paul. we'll come back to you in a moment. let's do it.
>> okay, thank you. we have spoken to both of our clients about conflicts of interest. we have had in-depth conversations with them. mario lehman and i are representing both of them. we're representing both james and jennifer. and the conflict issue has been very much discussed and resolved. we believe at this time, ethically and professionally, we can continue on in this fashion. >> as you know pursuant to pcr 166.5 act 1 you must state on the record the reasons you believe joint representation in all probability will not cause a conflict of record. please state that in accordance by the court rule. >> thank you, your honor, after reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case. and one of the things i need to
make clear is that the media has been staff rated with cherry picked facts. and we have talked to our clients in-depth and learned all of the circumstances of the case which obviously are covered by attorney/client privilege, there is not a conflict of interest between what happened. without, i cannot divulge specific reasons but there is not a conflict of interest between the parents, their defense and their defense strategy. >> prosecutor, any comments or statements you want to make relative to any potential conflicts of interest? >> your honor, you know, i'm not sure that there's any facts that have been placed on the record that meets the standard. i'm not saying that i object. i'm not sure that we have satisfied the court rule. but if mr. peace has something about it. >> i am inquired to inquire as
to each defendant as well. jennifer crumbley, do you have any objection to ms. layman and ms. schmidt recognizing that they come from the same firm and they will be representing both of you? >> i have no objection, your honor. >> mr. crumbley, likewise for you, do you have any objection to both ms. lehman and ms. schmidt to this particular case. >> no objection, your honor. >> do either of you have potential concerns about potential conflicts of interest. mr. crumbley? >> no. >>le ms. crumbley? >> no. >> at this point, the court is satisfied that both of the defendants are comfortable with both attorneys representing them
in this case. the attorneys have indicated on the record they do not believe there's a conflict of interest. they have spoken to both defendants relative to any potential conflict of interest and whether or not it such representation may jeopardize the defendant to have the undivided loyalty of their lawyers. therefore, the court will allow the representation on behalf of both defendants. >> thank you, your honor. >> now, in terms of the arraignment. jennifer crumbley, i'm going to arraign you first. so if you'll please you get close to that microphone so we can hear you, if at anytime you do not hear or see, put your hand up and we will try to figure out what's going on. do you understand that you're charged with the following count, count one, involuntary manslaughter which is punishable up to 15 years in prison and/or
a $7,500 and mandatory dna for the death of madisyn baldwin. do you understand that the charge for count 1? >> mr. crumbley, do you understand that you're charged in count two for the death of tate myre, involuntary sha manslaughter. >> i understand. >> do you understand you're charged in count three in the death of hana st. juliana with involuntary manslaughter along with mandatory dna testing? >> i understand. >> do you understand that you're charged in count 4 for the death of justin shilling with
involuntary manslaughter which is punishable up to 15 years in prison up to $7,500 along with mandatory dna testing? >> i understand. >> do you understand you do have the right to plead guilty or not guilty to all of those counts? >> i understand. >> and do you understand that you have a right to a swift trial by judge and you have the right to call witness against the charges and remain silent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. do you understand? >> yes, your honor. >> do you understand all of the counts? >> ma'am, are you on probation or parole for any other counts? >> no. >> and how are you pleading to count 1? >> not guilty. >> how are you pleading to count
2? >> not guilty. >> how are you pleading to count 3? >> not guilty. >> how are you pleading to count 4? >> not guilty. the court will enter the pleas of not guilty for all four counts. the court will set the probable cause conference which is going to be on december 14th. >> we will attempt to get that -- >> that's december 14th at 1:15 p.m. the preliminary investigation is scheduled for december 22nd at 9:45 a.m. those will be in-person hearings. >> your honor, just as a matter for the file, are you assigned for the purpose of exam the preexam, or is it a different judge within the court?
>> it is me. >> okay, thank you. thank you. >> i'm going to address that in a minute. i'm going to go ahead and arraign whether james crumbley first. james crumbley, can you see and hear the court okay? >> yes. >> and do you understand, sir, that you are charged in count 1 for the death of madisyn baldwin of involuntary manslaughter which is punishable up to 15 years in prison and or to a $7,500 fine and mandatory dna testing? >> i understand. >> do you understand count 2, you're charged with the death of tate myre, involuntary manslaughter punishable up to 17 years in prison, 7500 fine and mandatory testing. >> i understand. >> do you understand you're
charged with the rinvoluntary manslaughter of hana st. juliana? >> i understand. >> and do you understand count 4, the death of justin shill, of involuntary manslaughter and mandatory dna testing. >> i understand. >> you have an understanding you have a right to plead guilty or not guilty? >> i understand. >> do you understand you have a right to trial by a jury or judge to call and confront witnesses called against you and to testify or remain silent and be presumed not guilty for each and every element of the crime? do you understand those trial? >> i understand. >> are you on probation for any other offense? >> no. >> how are you pleading to count 1? >> not guilty. >> how are you pleading to count 2?
>> not guilty. >> how are you pleading to count 3? >> not guilty. >> how are you pleading to count 4? >> not guilty. >> again, the court will accept the plea of not guilty for all four counts. this will be scheduled for a probable cause conference on december 14th at 1:15 and a preliminary examination on december 22nd at 9:45 a.m. at this point, i will address bond. first, i'd like to hear from pretrial services. >> thank you, your honor, address the record. miss gardner declined to speak with pretrial conferences. as a result, no references were contacted. she's 42 years old and married. her listed address is 112 east street in oxford michigan. she does hnot have a prior criminal history. not on probation or parole.
does not have a history of documented violence. the charges are severe. those charges issued by the court. along with defendants, every defendant is afforded presumption of innocence. of the defendants are acting through their attorney and what the court issued. based on the defendant's attempt to flee prosecution. it is our recommendation that any release on the bail is not appropriate in this case, in order to further mitigate concerns for appearance of public safety. if the defendant is released the following conditions are respectfully recommended. pretrial supervision. and ability to leave work if employed. attorney visits. not having any contact with witnesses or victims or return
to oxford high school. not to possess any firearms and must turn in any firearms that have not been confiscated. >> thank you. >> who's going to speak on behalf of the prosecutor's office? >> i am, your honor. >> go ahead. >> your honor, pursuant to mtv 1.0106 bond should be set with likelihood of conviction. here, the likelihood of conviction is strong. your honor, we know from fact that the crumbleys -- mr. crumbley purchased this weapon for his son. and that on the 27th, mrs. crumbley went to the shooting range with her son. posted on social media saying that it was a mother/son day that she bought a weapon, a gun for her baby for christmas. it's also clear from the facts that he had total access to this
weapon. and that it was -- it was for him. second, on the 29th, both defendants were aware that he was searching ammunition on his phone at school. instead of reacting to that as a concerned parent and worried about safety, mrs. crumbley texted lol, just i'm not mad. just next time don't get caught. and then obviously on this very tragic day on the 30th, they were called to the school. and about their son's drawing which clearly depicted acts of violence. and instead of disclosing to the school that he had full access to this weapon, they chose not to. they chose not to take their son home. they chose not to tell anybody that he might be dangerous when it was clear and they had every likelihood that he was. and instead, they left. furthermore, after the active shooting announcement went out,
mrs. crumbley texted her son, ethan, don't do it. and mr. crumbley went to his home purposely to search for the weapon because he was afraid his son had the weapon and was in fact shooting people and hurting them, which as we know, is exactly what happened. your honor, this is a very serious, horrible, terrible murder and shooting. and it has affected the entire community. and these two individuals could have stopped it. and they have every reason to know that he was dangerous and they gave him a weapon. and they didn't secure it. and they allowed him free access to it. furthermore, your honor, the purpose of bond is to secure further court appearances. and yesterday, they were charged with these counts of involuntary manslaughter. now, your honor, the communication between ms. schmidt and the prosecutor's
office a text message was sent to me an was not replied to. and, you know, we don't have an obligation to cooperate. and there are good reasons for that. i think they've -- the fact that the events that played out show the reasons for that. now, mrs. schmidt, clearly her clients did not tell her the truth. their representation was that they wanted to turn themselves in and they were on their way to do that, however, they didn't turn themselves in. we were told they were out of town. except that yesterday morning, they withdrew $4,000 from an atm in rochester hills. very close to where they could have turned themselves in, with no impetus and no efforts on behalf of law enforcement. instead, they fled. and they fought multiple attempts to hide their location. and were eventually tracked down
after they parked their car somewhere, a witness saw it. and the entire team, apprehension team, with multiple other law enforcement agencies went into a vacant building and searched from top to bottom. and these two individuals were found locked somewhere in a room hiding. these are not people that we can be assured will return to court on their own. and then lastly, pursuant to mcr 6106, we also should consider or the court should consider whether there are members of the community to vouch. there are none here. in fact, there are none here because there's not one person in that community that will vouch for these two defendants. i'm asking that you set a $500,000 >> i would like to hear from the attorneys. address bond for jennifer
crumbley first. >> your honor, i need to respond to the prosecution's comments about our contact with their office. on thursday night i texted karen mcdonald and told her my office was representing the crumbleys and i wanted to speak with her. she did text back, said we could talk first thing friday morning. first thing friday morning i did text miss mcdonald. i also group texted miss mcdonald with mario layman. i called her office, talked to her personal secretary and explained who i was, the circumstances, and that i needed to speak with miss mcdonald. mario layman also called miss mcdonald in the morning. we called the prosecutor's office throughout the day and never got a call back. we were going to make arrangements to have our clients turn themselves in. i was in a trial in circuit court in front of judge savin
all day. she was traveling on a plane from florida to michigan. the prosecutor's office, instead of getting back to us in any way decided to have a press conference and as miss mcdonald admitted tried to find a way to surprise our clients and catch them off guard when it was so unnecessary. last night and throughout the day we were in contact with our clients. they were scared. they were terrified. they were not at home. they were figuring out what to do, getting finances in order and the last text messages we have with them and phone calls mario and i had with them, our plan was to drive to novi district court because arraignments were supposed to start at 8:30 for any county arraignment, and we had plans to meet them at 7:30 to text the fugitive apprehension team to
get to the court by 8:30 so they could be arraigned first thing. those were plans we made and solidified and we did not announce it because unlike the prosecution, we weren't attempting to make this a media spectacle. this case is absolutely the saddest, most tragic worst case imaginable. there's absolutely no doubt. but our clients were absolutely going to turn themselves in. it was just a matter of logistics. all the prosecution had to do is communicate with me about it. we tried multiple times. all right. that being said, with respect to miss crumbley, she's 43 years old. she has been employed as the director of a large company, director of marketing. she grew up in clarkston prior
to living in oxford where they owned their home since 2015. she lived in lake orion. she has never been in serious trouble with the law. she does have a drunk driving conviction back from when she was in college. any conviction on miss crumbley's record is a misdemeanor and is old. miss crumbley has retained my office and mario obviously. she would not have done that had she planned to not turn herself in and flight these charges. i'm quite certain they wouldn't have paid my office money and taken those steps if they were not going to fight these charges. when it comes to the seriousness of the offense, when you listen to the prosecution's facts they're presenting which are incomplete, very incomplete, it does sound like an absolutely
egregious wrongdoing on the part of mr. and mrs. crumbley that they gave their child a gun and encouraged him to do this. that's just not the case. mrs. crumbley is presumed innocent. i ask this court to know that, to note that full discovery hasn't been available. the court is only aware of facts the prosecution has presented. but that gun was actually locked. so when the prosecution is stating this child had free access to a gun, that is just absolutely not true. we need an opportunity to fight this case in court and not in the court of public opinion. we need the opportunity to have our clients' constitutional rights to being presumed innocent protected, and this court is going to see in the exam that there's more going on than the court has been made aware of. for that reason, your honor, i ask the court to set bond,
keeping all of that in mind. our clients would absolutely be -- avail to a gps tether, they would obey all of the conditions listed by pretrial services. this case does not warrant a $500,000 bond. i would ask this court in light of the criminal history, the limited facts presented to order that the bond be set at $50,000 or $100,000 if the court believes it needs to be more. our clients are going to fight these charges. our clients are just as devastated as everyone else. bond has to come from a place of legal soundness, not emotional reaction which has driven this entire case. and it is emotionally charged, it is emotionally the worst thing i have ever been involved with and seen. there's no doubt it is the worst
thing the crumbleys have ever been involved with and seen, and there's just so much going on here. we ask the court to set reasonable bond. >> any additional comments as relates to james crumbley? >> yes, your honor. james is 45 years old. he has a prior conviction from 2004, again similar to jennifer crumbley, any convictions he what would have been -- we believe they were misdemeanors, he doesn't have substance abuse issues. he does have some health issues that require, he is diabetic, require two types of insulin. he was gainfully employed. he has been in michigan since he and jennifer moved here several years ago. as for the seriousness of charges as miss smith has stated, the facts that have been presented by miss mcdonald and her office have been cherry picked to further her narrative of making an example of mr. and
mrs. crumbley which she freely said she was doing yesterday during her press conference. again, to echo what miss smith said, i personally contacted miss mcdonald's office to advise of mayan miss smith's availability. he chose not to call back. i was in communication with law enforcement and miss smith. they knew we were planning to bring in mr. and mrs. crumbley, they knew we were in communication with them, contrary to what was presented in the media. your honor, they hired our office thursday. we are prepared to defend this case. they are absolutely taking this case seriously. they are devastated by the events in the oxford incident. this is not something being taken lightly by them or us, your honor. i agree with miss smith, $500,000 is not warranted in this case. the charges are very serious, but as the court is aware, they are allegations at this point. as miss smith stated, both clients are presumed innocent
unless proven guilty, your honor, and from what we know, your honor, the facts aren't what was presented to the court and the public. i again echo what miss smith indicated. our clients are more than happy to have a gps tether, to be on pretrial service supervision. i am again requesting $50,000 or $100,000 bond. mr. crumbley as with mrs. crumbley is not a flight risk, he is not a danger to the community. there's no risk they're going to flee prosecution. they were fleeing prosecution. i want to make that very clear with the court. we have been in communication with the prosecutor's office and law enforcement and our clients throughout yesterday. they were not fleeing prosecution contrary to media reports. i am asking that they have a $50,000 or $100,000 bond with gps tether and pretrial service supervision. >> may i respond, please? >> your honor, i agree with miss
smith on one thing. the court hasn't heard all the facts. i have an ethical duty not to release those facts. she and mr. crumbley have an absolute, we have a burden and these are merely allegations. so i agree. and i just want to point out, nobody needs permission. these defendants did not need my permission and didn't need law enforcement permission to go to the court and turn themselves in and go to the police department, sheriff's department, turn themselves in. i agree mrs. smith was perhaps in trial, had a break from 11:45 to 2:45. i can't imagine why they were surprised. the whole country knew the charges were coming. and lastly, to suggest that anyone is somehow using this incident to create press, there's a lot of attention here. four children were murdered and seven others injured. and that is on the mind of every
single person in this country. so i would ask you impose the $500,000 cash surety on each of the defendants, your honor. >> in terms of bond, the court is required to comply with mcr 6.106. purpose of bond is to ensure the defendants appear in court for all necessary court appearances as well as to take into consideration any risk to public safety. obviously these charges are very, very serious. there's no question about that. the court does have concern about flight risk and public safety, given circumstances that occurred yesterday, and the fact the defendants had to be apprehended in order to appear for purpose of arraignment. the court indicated yesterday that it would be conducting arraignment at 4:00 p.m. and nobody appeared for purpose of arraignment. >> your honor -- >> setting bond for jennifer crumbley at $500,000, cash
IN COLLECTIONSCNN (San Francisco) Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on