Pontiac, Michigan – As the jury deliberated on four counts of involuntary manslaughter against Jennifer Crumbley in Michigan, they had two questions for the judge on Monday.
The first question came after just over two hours of deliberation. The jury sought clarification on instructions, specifically asking if there are different ways to convict Crumbley. The judge, Cheryl Matthews, informed them that there are indeed different theories to support the charges of involuntary manslaughter. She referred the jury to re-read part of her instructions, which outlined two different theories the prosecutor asserts to support the charges.
According to the instructions, the first theory is that Crumbley committed involuntary manslaughter because she failed to perform a legal duty. The second theory is that she was grossly negligent. “Those theories are two different ways to prove the same crime. Either or both of these theories, if proven, are sufficient to establish the crime of involuntary manslaughter,” the instructions explained.
An hour later, the jury had a second question. They asked if they could infer anything from evidence or witnesses that the prosecution did not bring, specifically questioning the absence of the shooter or other people who could answer how Ethan Crumbley got the gun. Judge Matthews informed the jury that they can only consider the evidence that was presented during the trial.
The questions from the jury shed light on their thorough consideration of the case and their commitment to fully understanding the instructions and limitations presented to them. As they continue to deliberate, the outcome of the trial remains in the balance.