The parents of a gunman have been convicted of manslaughter. What happens now?

When prosecutor Karen McDonald decided to pursue criminal charges against the parents of the teen who committed the deadliest school shooting in Michigan history, even some members of her own staff expressed doubts, fearing the case was too ambitious to win.

“It seemed like a huge reach to try to hold parents accountable,” said Linda C. Fentiman, a professor emerita at Pace University and an expert on health law and criminal justice. “This was new legal territory.”

But in the end, prosecutors were able to convince two separate juries that they had met their burden of proof. The parents, Jennifer and James Crumbley, were both found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter – one for each of the students shot dead by their son at Oxford High School on November 30, 2021.

The question now is whether the cases will have consequences for the legal field surrounding criminal law, parental responsibility and weapons legislation.

Mark D. Chutkow, an attorney and former federal prosecutor in Michigan, said the unique circumstances in this trial made it unlikely the country would see a barrage of similar cases in which parents are tried for crimes committed by their children.

Still, it would be likely that more prosecutors would try Ms. McDonald’s approach, he added. “They have a playbook to look at,” he said. “And they can try to apply it even in cases with perhaps less compelling factors.”

Mr Crumbley, 47, was found guilty on Thursday, and Mrs Crumbley, 45, was sentenced last month. Sentencing for both is scheduled for April, and each parent faces up to 15 years in prison. Their son, Ethan, pleaded guilty to 24 charges, including first-degree murder, and was sentenced last year to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In the trials against both parents, prosecutors focused in part on the Crumbleys’ inability to pick Ethan up from school after he drew a violent drawing that included a written request for help the morning of the shooting. They also highlighted that Ethan had access to a gun that Mr Crumbley had purchased.

At the time of the shooting, Michigan had not passed legislation requiring firearms stored in the presence of minors to be unloaded and locked up. (Michigan lawmakers passed legislation requiring this last year.) To hold a gunman’s parents criminally responsible, prosecutors in Oakland County had to find another way.

They ended up on charges of involuntary manslaughter, which made the Crumbleys’ cases extremely intimidating for prosecutors as they had to draw a causal link from the parents’ actions – or inactions – to the deaths of four high school students.

“Until now, there has been hesitation to use those types of laws” in a shooting case like this, said Matthew Schneider, a former U.S. attorney who is a partner at the law firm Honigman LLP in Michigan. “But now people will be more willing to use it.”

The verdicts against the Crumbleys can still be appealed, and the lasting impact of the trial may depend on what happens. If the verdicts are overturned, the cases could be considered less consequential or even become a tool for lawyers.

But if enforced, they could serve as a blueprint for prosecutors, especially in states without gun safety laws. According to the Giffords Law Center for Gun Violence Prevention: 26 states have laws advocates that guns should always be stored safely or anywhere a minor is likely to be present.

The trials can also have a psychological effect on families across the country.

Because of the excessive publicity, Professor Fentiman said, “it should alert many parents that they could be held criminally responsible if they allow their child access to firearms.”

To some extent, the impact of the Crumbleys’ cases may depend on how courts and the public interpret the parents’ behavior: a troubled couple doing their best, or blatantly negligent?

Lawyers for both parents argued that they had no idea their son was capable of such violence.

“We have maintained since November 30, 2021 that James did not know his son could or would harm anyone, or that he had obtained the means to do so,” Mariell Lehman, Mr Crumbley’s lawyer, said in a statement after the pronounciation. process.

But some experts said the parents seemed to miss so many warning signs that prosecutors’ success was difficult to replicate in other cases.

“I don’t see this as revolutionary, practically or legally,” said Steve Dulan, an attorney and professor who serves on the board of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners. “It’s just a sad, strange thing really.”

For Erin Davis, chief litigation officer at the gun control group Brady United, a minor’s easy access to a gun was critical in this case.

“I think prevention is a really important message that comes out of this,” she said. “Safe storage is the pillar of responsible gun ownership.”

That message is likely to resonate with parents regardless of what happens with an appeal, said Mr. Schneider, the former U.S. attorney.

“I have guns in the house,” he said. “And I always kept them locked. But now I’m absolutely sure they’re locked. There is no more room for mistakes.”