STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 6" CIRCUIT COURT FOR OAKLAND COUNTY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, Case No. 2022-279989-FH Hon. Cheryl A. Matthews = a 2 JAMES CRUMBLEY, + g Defendant S g 3 = KAREN D. McDONALD (P59083) MARIELL R. LEHMAN (P74760) = Prosecuting Attorney Attorney for Defendant Oakland County Prosecutor's Office Lehman Law Firm, PLLC 1200 N. Telegraph Road 8113 Wilson Street Pontiac, MI 48341 Shelby Township, MI 48316 Ph.: (248) 858-0656 Ph,: (586) 291-3414 MARC A. KEAST (P69842) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Oakland County Prosecutor's Office 1200N. Telegraph Road Pontiac, MI 48341 Ph. (248) 858-0656 DEFENDANT'S PE’ IN FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR VIOLATING THE COURT ORDERS REGARDING PRETRIAL PUBLICITY, DATED JUNE 27, 2022, JULY 14, 2022, AND OCTOBER 18, 2022 NOW COMES the Defendant, JAMES CRUMBLEY, by and through his attomey, MARIELL R. LEHMAN, and for his Petition states as follows: 1. James. Crumbley is charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, contrary FILED Received for Filing Oakland County Clerk to MCL 750.321. This case is currently set for trial on January 23, 2024. 2. As this Court is aware, the defense has raised the issue of pretrial publicity and comments to the media on more than one occasion with the goal of ensuring a fair trial in this matter.3. The defense filed motions relating to pretrial publicity with this Court and, as a result of Motions filed, this Court entered the following orders: a. June 27, 2022 Order Regarding Motion (Defendants’ Motion to Restrict Pretrial Publicity); b, July 14, 2022 Order Regarding Motion (People’s Motion for Clarification of the Court’s June 27, 2022 Order Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Restrict Pretrial Publicity); and, ©. October 18, 2022 Order Regarding Motion (Motion to Restrict or Limit Pretrial Statements by Prosecution). 4, Upon review of the prior Orders listed above, the Court will note that “none of the parties” were to “engage in pretrial publicity by making public statements about this case to the media.” 5. The term “public statement” was defined as an “extrajudicial statement that the party knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by the media while the order remains in effect.” 6. OnNovember 12, 2023, Prosecutor McDonald participated in an interview which was broadcast on WXYZ Channel 7, The segment which included the interview was called Spotlight on the News: An in-depth conversation with Oakland County Prosecutor Karen D. McDonald”. yy ile the interview was broadcast live, and included footage of Mr. Crumbley in a prior court hearing, a video of the interview was also published on the news outlet’s website.’ 8. On at least one occasion during the interview, Prosecutor McDonald was asked about the case involving Mr. Crumbley. While Prosecutor McDonald noted that there was a gag order in place prohibiting her from discussing the case, she subsequently went on to say: * hups://www.waxy2.com news/poliical/spotlight-on-the-news/spotlight-on-the-news-an-in-depth-conversation-with oakland-county-prosecutor-karen-d-medonald (Last accessed on November 13, 2023)= At 13:40 ~ Interviewer Chuck Stokes addresses that Mr. Crumbley’s, and his wife’s, trial is set to startin January 2024 and asks about the message to society and to America if Mr. Crumbley and his wife are convicted = At 14:28 — Prosecutor McDonald, after indicating that she cannot comment on the case: T'm always going to do what is the right thing to do...I’m always going to do what I think is right. - At 14:48 — Interviewer Chuck Stokes: And if the jury comes back and says may not have been good parents may have been terrible parents, but we are not going to hold them responsible because they didn’t pull the trigger even though they may have failed in many areas of raising this kid. What's that message? = At 15:04 — Prosecutor McDonald: Right so I can’t comment on that case, but I'l tell you that we don’t charge cases that we don’t believe we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. 9. Inaddition to violating the three orders of this Court, Prosecutor has again ignored her ethical duties as a prosecutor, as has been argued previously: (a) First, MRPC 3.6(a) advises that lawyers shall not make extrajudicial statements that will be communications and will have a substantial likelihood of seminated as pul materially prejudicing a proceeding in the matter (b) Next, MRPC 3.6(a)(4) states “[a] statement is likely to have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding when it refers to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration, and the statement relates to...any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration.]”; (emphasis added) (©) Further, MRPC 3.6(a)(6) notes that “the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there is included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty(]” is likely to have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a proceeding in the matter and should not be made.(@) Finally, in Bay County Prosecutor v Bay County District Judge, 109 MichApp 476; 311 NW2d 399 (1981) the court noted the special duties placed on prosecutors, above and beyond the rules mentioned above, stating that in our criminal justice system “the accused is to be given the benefit if ail reasonable doubts.” /d. at 482-484 (emphasis added), 10. Its clear that Prosecutor McDonald's statements violate the prior orders of this Court, while also violating MRPC 3.6(a), an accused should be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts, as stated in Bay County Prosecutor, supra, Prosecutor McDonald stated the opposite when she proclaimed that her office does not charge cases unless they feel the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 11, The defense has previously filed motions on this issue to ensure that Mr. Crumbley is given a fair trial and that his federal and state constitutional rights are protected and upheld WHEREFORE, Defendant, James Crumbley, asks this Court: (1) To enter the proposed Order to Show Cause; (2) Require Prosecutor McDonald to appear before this Court on November 22, 8:30 a.m. to address why she failed to comply with the Court’s prior orders; (3) Sanction the prosecution as this remedy has been previously requested and denied; and, (4) Grant all other relief this Court deems fair, just, and equitable, Respectfully submitted: Dated: November 13, 2023 Meanie Ke. Leponan MARIELL R. LEHMAN (P74760) Attorney for Defendant