The Litigation Nation Podcast, hosted by Jack Sanker & Danessa Watkins, is a roundup of the most important and interesting legal developments happening right now, giving you an insider’s view to the legal system. If you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to Litigation Nation wherever you listen to podcasts, so you never miss an episode.
Welcome to litigation nation. I'm your host, Jack Sankar, along with my co host, Anessa Watkins. Reminder, this is the podcast where we talk about the most interesting and important legal news of the past couple of weeks. For today's stories, we have an update on the class action suit related to the East Palestine, Ohio train derailment in 2023. The president of the American Bar Association says in a statement that lawyers have a duty to defend judges from attacks on their character.
Jack Sanker:And, Danessa, what do you have?
Danessa Watkins:Today, I'm gonna cover 2 cases out of Michigan. The first, a federal judge recently found that local zoning regulation that would prevent wineries from hosting weddings or other gap gatherings is actually not an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech or an infringement on property interests. And then also in Michigan, the parents of teenager Ethan Crumley, who is the, youngster who carried out the deadliest school shooting in Michigan's history. Well, his parents were recently sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter. And this is a defining moment in the recent push to hold parents accountable for the criminal actions of their
Jack Sanker:children. All that more, here's what you need to know. The class action suit related to the East Palestine, Ohio train derailment and chemical spill ordeal from 2023, just settled this past Monday for a gross total of $600,000,000. On April 9th, Norfolk Southern, and the class action attorneys for the class filed a joint motion in the Northern District of Ohio, notifying the parties that they had agreed to a 600 $1,000,000 settlement in principle. The final terms of the deal were in the works.
Jack Sanker:The class of claimants includes anyone within a 10 mile radius of the derailment for personal injury claims and then a 20 mile radius for any other claims. The settlement is being funded by Norfolk Southern mostly along with the railcar owners, GATX Corp, Trinity Industries Leasing, and the chemical company, for the vinyl chloride that was inside the tankers that spilled and we also have those horrible images all over social media, Oxy Vinyls LP. Quoting from a law 360 piece on the news, quote, Norfolk Southern said that it has negotiated the proposed deal as part of its ongoing efforts to make it right for the people of East Palestine and the surrounding communities in a Tuesday statement on the proposed settlement in principle. The agreement is designed to provide finality and flexibility for settlement class members, the company said. Individuals and businesses will be able to use compensation from settlement in any manner they see fit to address potential adverse impacts from the derailment.
Jack Sanker:This could include health care needs, medical monitoring, property restoration and diminution, and compensation for any net business loss, unquote. Good for the town and the people affected, I suppose. However, I it's it's worth noting dollars $1,000 per person.
Danessa Watkins:I was just gonna say, I mean, I don't do class action work, but I've always been curious about how they take these large settlements and divvy them up. You know, whose responsibility is that? And I'm sure you have to submit claims and, you know, provide some evidence of your damages. But, yeah, certainly, 6,000 per person is not gonna cut it here.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. You know, I so on the first part, the how the how are these settlement funds administered? Typically, the there's a trust that's set up as part of the deal that's usually being administered by, the funders of the settlement. And so that those trustees will be evaluating the claims and and they'll agree on the framework for how those claims get submitted. So, you know, for example, there's a a lot of there's a lot of funds still out there from the asbestos cases going back to, like, 19 eighties.
Jack Sanker:And if you want to submit a claim for asbestosis or mesothelioma or whatever, you typically have to provide some type of medical documentation like a, scan films that shows, you know, something in your lungs or whatever, as well as affidavits and things like that that show that you would have been exposed to this chemical in the first place. I imagine it'll be something similar like that. The one thing about these Palestine chemical spill, is that I it's $600,000,000. It's a lot of money. But I think we are remarkably lucky that this wasn't worse than it could have been.
Jack Sanker:By all accounts, at least according to the EPA, the NTSB, and some of the I know that the private universities that are in the area, like Carnegie Mellon, I think, and a few others that have been studying this, have said for I think for the most part that the that the water and air and all that stuff is fine. People aren't being exposed to anything higher than what they were. However, the actual, like, explosion itself, all that happened in a relatively remote area of Western Ohio. And this train, if I recall, was, was on its way to or was coming from, I can't remember which, Cincinnati. And then eventually, I think would have ended up here in Chicago.
Jack Sanker:So had it blown up in one of those places, or an even a more densely populated suburb or whatever, you would see a lot more, you know, damage and and injury and things like that. And this you know, the the counter or the analog to this that everyone was upset about at the time, if anyone remembers back in 2012, there was a tanker that blew up in in Quebec, which killed, dozens so we managed to avoid that here. And, you know, hopefully, the folks in East Palestine and and around there are gonna be made at least somewhat whole by the settlement, but it could have been way worse. That's that's sort of my takeaway from this. And and I as someone who was I was at the NTSB hearings in East Palestine, we were involved in some of the work around this, not the class action case, but some of the other stuff.
Jack Sanker:It was just apparent, like, how much worse this could have been. If they had invented the tanker at the right time, it could have, you know, been a bigger explosion, all sorts of stuff like that. So, just bullet dodged here. Mhmm.
Danessa Watkins:Well and, hopefully, I'm sure, you know, certain people will get more than 6,000. Some people will get less. So, hopefully, they send the money where it's needed most.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. I mean, not everyone's gonna it boils down to. I don't I don't think I qualify for a claim for having spent 5 days there for the NTSB hearings, but, you know, it's the 2nd episode in a row that I I've theorized that I should just start joining class actions. Yeah. So in any event, I I'm sure that the people in East Palestine are probably happy to get this done.
Jack Sanker:I'm sure that the class action, the lawyers who put this together are thrilled with their fee. And, Norfolk Southern hopefully has learned a lesson here and, we'll let this happen again.
Danessa Watkins:Okay. So my first story I'm covering today involves a lawsuit that was filed by several wineries located in the Peninsula Township in Traverse City, Michigan. Now to provide some geographic reference. So, when looking at a map, Michigan is shaped like a min with the thumb facing East and Traverse City would then be located at about the tip of the ring finger. So Peninsula Township, true to its name, is a peninsula and it juts into Grand Traverse Bay, which is part of Lake Michigan.
Danessa Watkins:And that peninsula is full of agricultural sites. So there are vineyards with rows of grape vines, lavender farms, nurseries, fruit stands, protected parks, all surrounded by 3 sides of lake. So it's really a gorgeous part of the state.
Jack Sanker:The Napa Valley of the Midwest, if you will.
Danessa Watkins:Absolutely. I've actually been to Traverse City. I have not been to the peninsula, but, just from the pictures I saw, I mean, this is a location where you could see people wanting to host weddings and other types of events. So our plaintiff here, the wineries, they sued Peninsula Township for several restrictions and regulations that were put in place via the Peninsula Township Zoning Ordinance. There were regulations on advertising, what type of bar and restaurant operations they could have, prohibitions on amplified music, and then a prohibition on hosting events such as recently got set for trial on April 29th.
Danessa Watkins:And on April 5th, the district judge entered a ruling on the party's cross motions for summary judgment. So one part of the ruling address this ordinance prohibition on wineries using their space for weddings and receptions and other social functions for hire. The The judge actually entered summary judgment against the wineries on their claim that this zoning ordinance regulated their protected commercial speech under the First Amendment. The threshold, question for First Amendment Amendment claims like these is whether ordinance regulates protected commercial speech or expressive conduct.
Jack Sanker:Is there a distinction between commercial speech and personal speech in this context?
Danessa Watkins:Well, yes. So in this case, the commercial speech has to hit certain criteria, has to be an advertisement, has to refer to a specific product or service, and then the speaker has to have an economic motivation for making it. The reason why that distinction matters is the level of scrutiny that applies.
Jack Sanker:I see. So there are different first amendment standards.
Danessa Watkins:Correct.
Jack Sanker:Okay.
Danessa Watkins:Yep. So commercial speech will have a lower level of scrutiny than
Jack Sanker:Makes sense.
Danessa Watkins:Personal speech. Now what the plaintiffs tried to argue here is that their what they call agritourism is actually a type of modern commercial advertising. So in Michigan, the Department of Agriculture has described this term agritourism as follows. Quote, agritourism is a niche form of tourism and defines the places where agriculture and tourism connect, including any time a farming operation opens its doors to the public inviting visitors to enjoy their products and services. Agriculture and tourism are leading economic drivers in Michigan.
Danessa Watkins:Agritourism offers farmers a path to diversification of their business to include value added products and activities, which helps them better withstand things like poor weather conditions and market fluctuations. They say, if they they say if they host a wedding, for example, more patrons are going to be on their property. They're gonna see their other products, and the wineries will have an increase in their sales because of that. The court, however, said that hosting weddings and other events does not automatically convert these plaintiffs commerce oriented activities into speech, and you can't just slap this term agritourism label onto these events. So if the court were to apply this broad term agritourism as a as a type of commercial speech, then essentially anytime a patron step foot on a wine property, that winery would be engaging in commercial speech.
Danessa Watkins:And according to the court, that view approaches the limitless view of speech that the Supreme Court has expressly disavowed. So these because these events, weddings, reunions, baby showers, because they don't refer to a specific or discrete type of commercial transaction, but at best, they really just refer to the winery and their products generally. It's not gonna be a type of protected speech under the first amendment. So regulating events does not implicate first amendment protections. Now the other part of the decision focused on this claim under the takings clause, and this part was actually a little bit more surprising to me.
Danessa Watkins:So the ordinance well, what the wineries are claiming is that the ordinance operates as a taking of their rights to operate their restaurants and keep certain hours of operation, playing music for their guests, and use of their their licenses under the Michigan liquor control code. So the 5th amendments taking clause protects private citizens from the government taking their property for public use without just compensation. And one example of a taking is, when a government invokes a regulation that denies a property owner the full use of their property.
Jack Sanker:There you go.
Danessa Watkins:So I think this was probably their best argument that they put forth. But once again, the court found for the township. It said there is no precedent for recognizing that a liquor license is a property interest protected by the takings clause.
Jack Sanker:So the the lice having a license is not a property interest for purposes of the takings clause. That's interesting. I mean, have a law license. Right?
Danessa Watkins:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:You have a license. Doctors have their medical licenses. I I suppose this would imply that those licenses could be revoked without due process.
Danessa Watkins:I don't know if I would go that far in a reading of this. And it's also it's it's hard to compare apples to oranges because, obviously, a liquor license is going to have certain restrictions on it anyway. I think in Michigan, there are limits on when you can actually sell Sure.
Jack Sanker:Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:Alcohol in the state and
Jack Sanker:Obviously, you can't sell the minors. You
Danessa Watkins:Right. Right. So I think the government has allowed restrictions on that license and, apparently, is is finding that further restrictions on it, or restrictions that may affect the ability to use that license. But it's, you know, it's it's different because here it's, you know, you can't play music to a certain extent. Okay.
Danessa Watkins:Well, does that your patronage that are
Jack Sanker:Probably.
Danessa Watkins:You know, you drinking your liquor or whatever? I mean, yes. But, the court's not willing to take it that far.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. And then also there's, you know, the fact that the the local, municipality here is, regulating the state issued liquor license effectively.
Danessa Watkins:Setting more setting more restrictions locally, yes, than the than they would at a state level. And, of course, they're looking at it from community standards. You know, this is a fairly small community, and so they wanna make sure that there aren't any nuisances from noise or traffic. And so they are, I guess, protecting, you know, the locals, from having to deal with whatever these wineries opening themselves up to, you know, 200 person events could bring.
Jack Sanker:I guess the flip side of this is is probably, you know, probably ridiculous. Like, if if if, zoning regulations for these types of things were found to be in violation of either the state or federal constitution, you know, how how does that play out, like, in a crowded city, for example? Like, how does how do the all of a sudden, how does the building code get enforced and everything else? So I guess it's not that surprising when you think about it in the macro level.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. I I think though it was, you know, an interesting argument to push.
Jack Sanker:From the first amendment perspective, for sure.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. So, essentially, this ruling just significantly limited what issues are gonna be, heard at trial. The wineries are still gonna be able to bring their case on merchandising and advertising rules. But, these these issues of commercial speech and and the takings clause, they got thrown out. So we'll see what happens with this.
Jack Sanker:Not exactly a free speech story, but kind of. The president of the American Bar Association said in a statement, just this past Monday here in Chicago, she warned of the the, threats and rhetorical and even serious physical threats that have been made to judges over the past couple of years which, of course have been a real problem and, you know, in and of themselves. It it should go without saying, are important. But also talks a lot about the the assault on the character of judges themselves and I'll read a portion of her statement to you. Quote, our courts and judges are under attack serious threats against judges have doubled since 2019 with 457 serious threats targeting federal judges across the country in 2023.
Jack Sanker:National leaders and private citizens are making false statements and argue, accusations against judges for partisan purse impersonal gain. These attacks are no idle matter. Often, they involve physical threats to har of harm or death, not only to the judges but to their families and staff. I'll take a pause real quick right there and say all of that should go without saying is well beyond the pale and not acceptable in polite society or any serious society at all. But it's kinda the next bit here that is somewhat interesting for me.
Jack Sanker:Going back to the quote, threats against the very individuals we have appointed or elected to administer our judicial system and the rule of law are no longer wrong. They also threaten the very fabric of our democracy, judicial independence, and the rule of law. All lawyers are bound by ethical rules based on the ABA model rules of professional conduct. These rules prohibit lawyers from making false statements about the qualifications or integrity of a judge. Based on these rules and to maintain the fair and independent administration of justice, lawyers are encouraged to defend judges and courts that are unjustly criticized, un quote.
Jack Sanker:So it's that last bit that really jumped out to me. There there she's not saying, the ABA is recommending that you jump on Facebook and get into arguments with your aunts and uncles about supreme court. Right? But I think she is encouraging, attorneys and and members of the bar to, police the speech around criticism of judges and judicial decisions. And and I I get generally what, she's saying here which is the crank theories about, you know, whatever it is you wanna say the election or, or or whatever, we should probably pipe up and and go and say something about that.
Jack Sanker:But let's take a pause on that for minute. I mean, there are and have been, over recent years, valid criticisms, I think, voiced at both, you know, the federal circuit court judge level, but especially at the supreme court level of people criticizing what they perceive as, impropriety to use a polite word, but some people would say, you know, outright corruption. And, this is a bit of a, from the ABA here, to encourage members of the bar to kind of, like, stick up and, I guess, maybe deflect or, defend certain things like this. It's just it struck a weird tone for me, given, you know, the standards of free speech in this country and everything else. Later, I wanna read again from the remainder of the statement here.
Jack Sanker:Quote, bar associations have a special responsibility to ensure that the public holds the judiciary to the highest esteem. Parenthetical, I would say that judges have a special responsibility to ensure the public holds them to the highest esteem. I
Danessa Watkins:would agree with that.
Jack Sanker:Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:I mean, I think I I see it from both sides, I guess. And it's it's hard for me to, you know, defend what the Supreme Court is doing, but I can take this, her you know, what the ABA president is telling us. I can take it on a a more local level, and it it did cause me so she did email this out to anyone who's a member of the ABA who signed up for emails because I did get it by email too. And it did make me think a little bit about as as lawyers that, you know, the first thing you do when you get a case, you research the opposing counsel, you research the judge. And oftentimes, I do send reports to my clients about the judges.
Danessa Watkins:You know, what kind of cases have they
Jack Sanker:Yes.
Danessa Watkins:Had before them? You know, how did they come down? Is there any patterns? Like, what should we be aware of?
Jack Sanker:And Let's let's not mince words here. Like, when we say we do research on the judge, we'll oftentimes, advise our clients. This judge doesn't know anything about this type of law.
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:Or this judge is so plaintiff friendly or defense friendly Mhmm. That depending on the claim that's in front of them, you're never gonna get a fair shake.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:That's candid assessments. Like and I'm I'm sure that there I hope that there are listeners here nodding along, but maybe some of them are shocked. It it it isn't shocking to anyone who litigates. Right. That I could I can I think I could speak for all of us when I say that?
Danessa Watkins:But I think what I took though, maybe from this morning that she put out, is that sometimes we have to be aware of who our clients are or who our audience is when we're saying these things.
Jack Sanker:Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:You know, it's one thing for us to come to our own conclusions, but maybe that's a takeaway for us on a local level of, you know, maybe you need to pay a little bit more attention to how you word these things and and show a little bit more respect for the for the judges because, you know, your clients aren't gonna forget that when that bad ruling comes down, you know, when your motion gets denied or whatever the case may be. Oh, yeah. You told me. I remember you told me from the beginning that this judge wasn't gonna rule for us. And then, you know, it becomes more of, well, you know, maybe that ruling did have some merit to it.
Danessa Watkins:And
Jack Sanker:Oh, yeah. Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:You know?
Jack Sanker:Well and there's also, you know, to your point, being aware of the audience, it it's you have to be aware of how people are gonna perceive this. If every lawyer in your jurisdiction is saying, man, that judge really stinks, you know, for x y z reason. There could be someone that hears that and is, like, wow. That judge is bad. You know, I should threaten their family.
Danessa Watkins:You're right. Okay.
Jack Sanker:And it's, like so maybe, you know, maybe you don't complain so loudly because you have to understand that there are a lot of crazy people out there who's gonna hear this stuff and not have any context to put it in. Right? Like, so if I our context, you know, that I I've assigned to a certain judge and I say, listen, this judge has, in my opinion, certain biases or whatever. That's in the context of, like, every judge in their jurisdiction on these narrow issues. Again, I think it goes without saying that if you're a judge who has either been elected or appointed, there's a baseline level of competency that you are expected to have and that every judge I've ever practiced before does have.
Jack Sanker:You know? It's in the margins where you can make these judgment calls or whatever. But someone who's not in industry or, doesn't understand that and thinks, well, just because this federal circuit court judge was appointed by Barack Obama or Donald Trump, they will always decide the issues in favor of those 2 political agendas. And that's just, like, that's never the case. And even if you look at those judges, they don't rule that way, like, often.
Jack Sanker:On a particular case, they may or may not, but it's it just doesn't work that way. By and large, the judges are trying to, like, be public servants, and and do a good job here. But this whole the tone of this whole thing do did kinda strike me as, it should be illegal to make fun of us. And, and, you know, that's you're you're not allowed to make fun of us. And, and if anyone if you overhear anyone making fun of us, you should you should tell them to stop.
Danessa Watkins:Oh, gosh. I don't know that I took it that way.
Jack Sanker:Here's well, let me let me read this last part.
Danessa Watkins:Okay.
Jack Sanker:Quote, every one of us must stand up for our judges and their staffs and engage in the civic education needed to help our public understand how our courts work, the crucial role education needed to help the public understand how our courts work. I mean, that's your job, man. Sorry, but, and I I understand as members of the of the bar, we do have obligations to the public at large, and, and I think that, you know, everyone in their heart of hearts tries to put on profession works. But if the judiciary and, the administration of justice is, like, cape, and, you've you don't have I mean, if you've ever seen a pro se litigant in court, you know, they are so, disadvantaged, to the point where it's I mean, they're they're basically in another country have with people speaking a different language. And so that aspect of this stuff, I think is the public's fault, not, you know, the private members of the bar association.
Jack Sanker:And it just struck me it just struck a weird tone for me to be, like, listen. You all need to make sure that that no one's making fun of our judges. Mhmm. And to which I would say, not the judges, but, you know, from the top down, if you're worried about that, I mean, maybe those people who are getting criticized, again, not death threats, not things like that, but the criticism, should be doing a better job understanding how that process works. And I think one of the most shocking things from the, like, the Dobbs opinion, for example, when that got leaked, and, like, was for a moment arguments and briefs go into and then decisions come out of.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. But, like, the Dobbs decision arguments and briefs go into and then decisions come out of. Yeah. But, like, the Dobbs decision which, like, showed, like, there's drafts. There's negotiations among the 9 justices.
Jack Sanker:Like, they are pitching ideas to each other. They are arguing to each other. Mhmm. They are recruiting each other to sign on to different opinions and everything. And I think people, when they stopped and thought about that for a minute, they're like, oh my god.
Jack Sanker:I don't know how this stuff even works.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:I don't even know who these people are or how this process like, there's no transparency at all. And, of course, there's not. And I'm not saying there should be. But if there's no transparency at all and people don't like the outcome, people are gonna complain, and and the crazy ones among us are gonna come up with conspiracies to explain it. So I I guess that's my 2¢ to just saying, I think the ABA president here has the right idea, but I just I think yeah.
Jack Sanker:I don't think it's my job. You know? That's I
Danessa Watkins:It is interesting how I and I I didn't think to really talk to any of my colleagues about it, but how we probably all interpreted this in a little bit of different ways. I just think our system has come under a microscope. You know, president Trump was made it a point to appoint as many federal judges as possible. You know, and I think that caused probably some people to start paying attention. And and maybe people didn't realize that in certain cases, judges are appointed, that federal judges are appointed, and also certain state and local judges are appointed, which is different.
Danessa Watkins:You know, when you here in Cook County, our judges run for election. They have to go out and and run an election and meet the people. And, I actually favor that because, you know, it it gives you a chance to actually meet the candidates. And, but I can see the other side of that too where, you know, you have the plaintiff's bar that are putting on for a judge or, you know, judges need to be careful. Like, they they can very easily create this type of, I don't know, miss misconception, I guess.
Danessa Watkins:And, and that's only been furthered to the investigations into justice Thomas, you know, taking these lavish vacations and so and then you start to alright. Well, why maybe that's why he decided that case that way.
Jack Sanker:And and and, like, I'm not even necessarily, you know, signing on to those, like, allegations, but we covered, it was in episode 40. A while back, there's a federal judge who was under a pretty a lot of scrutiny for the judge's competency. And this was a judge who, if I recall, was in her late seventies or early eighties. It was having, like, signs of, like, cognitive issues and and things like that, and penned a really really, strong objection to this because, you know, I'm a public servant. I I've, like, given my life to this and and all those things.
Jack Sanker:And, you know, in in no other context would that be appropriate, to say, you know, again, like, how it should be illegal to make fun of me. You shouldn't be allowed to question me. And, like, I get and I do understand, and I think it's important that judges are, occupy a special role in society, and that the presumptions of integrity and the presumptions of good intentions and the presumptions of competency come with the robe and for most of the time for good reason. But, like, when you have something like, Clarence Thomas thing or whatever political persuasion you are, justice Sotomayor was, was, in universities, it was, like, contingent on them buying, like, a a bunch of her books. Right?
Jack Sanker:So, like, that's a kickback, you know. And however you wanna, like whichever side of this you think you're on, the broader that your lens is at, you're like, you know, everyone else would get in trouble for that. Mhmm. And the fact that, like, they don't is one thing. And the fact that you you're having people, like, immensely powerful people politically like the president of the ABA saying, hey, don't complain too loudly about this.
Jack Sanker:Mhmm. Does make you feel like you're going crazy. And, it's just one of those things where I don't know. There's some element, there's this large element of people that are taking this all the wrong way and way too far and and should do a better job educating themselves as citizens about how this stuff works. But there's also a a big contingent of the problem here that I think is, you know what, if you are worried about people's misconceptions about how you broadly, the judiciary, works, get yourself out there and educate the people.
Jack Sanker:Mhmm. Don't blame me.
Danessa Watkins:I hear
Jack Sanker:you.
Danessa Watkins:Alright. Now taking us to, unfortunately, a little bit of a darker story. This is the school shooting that occurred back in November 30, 2021, where 15 year old Ethan Crumley, he actually committed the deadliest school shooting in Michigan's history, killing 4 students, wounding 6 students, and also a teacher. Now the recent story is that both of his parents were just sentenced to 10 to 15 years for shooting occurred, the Oakland County prosecutor on the case, Karen after this shooting occurred, the Oakland County prosecutor on the case, Karen McDonald, she actually delivered the shocking news that she was pursuing charges against the parents, only a few days after the shooting. And just to give you a little bit of an idea of the landscape, so Oxford, Michigan, politically speaking, is largely purple.
Danessa Watkins:There were many gun rights advocates in the town that did not like the potential for a new precedent being set that would put additional responsibilities on gun owners. So in Michigan, with very limited exceptions, minors are not allowed to possess guns, but there is no Michigan law that would require owners to keep guns locked and away from kids. So by comparison, I believe it's now 23 states plus Washington DC that have some form of a secure storage law. And, I mentioned that only because a 2019 assessment by the US Department of Homeland Security found that guns came from the home of a parent or close relative in 76% of school attacks where firearms were used. And in about half of those, the firearms were easily accessible.
Danessa Watkins:So all of this background certainly played a major role in the prosecutor's decision, and not to mention the sad reality that the US endures the most mass shootings worldwide. So fast forward to this case. Ethan Crumley pleaded guilty despite being 15, under Michigan law, the judge was able to determine through evidentiary hearings whether he, as a minor, should be eligible for an adult sentence. So at this point in Ethan's case, while the his defense team attempted to get him tried as a minor, there was a clear conflict that emerged between him and his parents. Ethan's attorney said that Ethan was deeply neglected by his parents and put forth evidence from a psychologist that described Ethan as a feral child.
Danessa Watkins:Now despite these His
Jack Sanker:attorney took that position?
Danessa Watkins:His, his attorney hired a psychologist who did an assessment, and that's how they described him. Oh. So despite best efforts, the court found that Ethan's possibility of rehabilitation was slim, that the crime didn't bear the hallmarks of youth, and that Ethan continues to be obsessed with violence even while in jail. So they ended up trying him as an adult. And in December of 2022, Ethan was sentenced to life in prison without parole, which is the automatic sentence for adults charged with first degree murder.
Danessa Watkins:And this is actually the harshest sentence in Michigan because it does not have the death penalty. So now despite the fact that Ethan was tried as an adult, his parents, they still continued these charges against them for involuntary manslaughter. Now in the past, there have been situations where parents have been held held, responsible for the acts of their children, and I'll I'll get into that in a little bit more detail. But that's why this case is distinguishable because they found that Ethan was essentially emancipated from his parents in the eyes of of the sentencing and how him But
Jack Sanker:were the parents were nonetheless responsible for
Danessa Watkins:Right. They still they the state still continue to try to press these charges against them. So, obviously, a lot came out in in Ethan's sentencing hearing. A lot of evidence that was then also used in the case against the parents. The defense for the parents, and they were, tried separately, which actually created another conflict because, you know, there were a lot of witnesses who described the mom as being this tough, you know, rough edged, the type of person that doesn't believe in therapy, you know, wasn't gonna take seriously her son's issues of mental health, whereas the dad was a little bit they almost described him as, like, meek, you know, friendly, meek.
Danessa Watkins:The mom wore the pants is is the picture that started to emerge. So they did have to try them separately, and I think probably the prosecutors hope was that maybe the dad would throw the mom under the bus a little bit.
Jack Sanker:The well, also, like, I'm assuming that the the mom and dad were at least involved in coordinating the defense of their kid, or involve painting a picture of, would involve painting a picture of, you know, he's he he is a a minor. It should be tried as a child because the parents had, I guess, some responsibility control or whatever that that you would prove there over it, which would be in in conflict with head's attorney, you would say that that I don't know. The kid was a bad egg and it wasn't our fault.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. Yeah. That's a good point. I I there were conflicts spread all across this case, and which is actually kind of sad, you know, because, I mean, obviously, the family is gonna be broken up in general as a result of a tragedy like this. But, yeah, the way that the prosecutions came out, you know, certainly pinned them against each other even more.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. And I did read somewhere, this mom was not very savvy about how putting stuff on social media could come back to bite her, or even texting, putting anything in text in general. I've People need to stop doing it. Oh my gosh. It's like, have you not watched the 4th the first 48?
Danessa Watkins:Like, everything comes out. But, yeah, she I think there was a text message that she had sent to a friend. She immediately went into hiding her and her husband. She texted something like, Ethan's on his own now. I need to protect myself.
Jack Sanker:Okay.
Danessa Watkins:So, yeah, it's a there there was a lot of bad evidence that came out against the parents. So, you know, and in this case, it was probably the right case for pursuing this this novel type of prosecution, just because of how really sad this evidence is. So leading up to the shooting, how the gun came into play was it was actually a early Christmas present from the parents. The father bought it, with his son with him, and the the prosecutor argued that they purchased this at a time where there were clear signs that their son's mental health was deteriorating and that he was potentially violent. So the gun was purchased 4 days before the shooting.
Danessa Watkins:The mother posted pictures and images of her and her son at the shooting range. But even prior to that, so leading up to his 15th birthday, Ethan began texting his mother about his paranoia. He was saying that he was hearing things. He thought people were in the house. He was scared to be alone.
Jack Sanker:You know, all of
Danessa Watkins:these texts were introduced, the parents' trial, as well as Ethan's journal, where he wrote about getting no help for his mental health where he wrote about getting no help for his mental health problems. Quote, I wanna I want help, but my parents don't listen to me, so I can't get any help, end quote. He wrote about his desire to watch students suffered, the likelihood that he would spend his life in prison. So, you know, it's it's one of those things where I know as a kid, I was like, mom, don't read my diary. But now as a parent, I'm like, I'm probably gonna be checking in on things.
Danessa Watkins:You know? And I
Jack Sanker:mean yeah. Because there there's also I know evidence. I mean, I know that the school was involved in one point or another. He, because he was like
Danessa Watkins:Well, yeah. Let me get to that part. That's actually the worst part.
Jack Sanker:In the dark here is, I think, the point.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. And it well and after I say this, you'll understand. I'm I'm wondering why there wasn't some liability potentially on the school as well. But, so the day of the shooting, Ethan made a ghastly drawing of a gun and a wounded man on his math assignment, and then he added the phrase, the thoughts won't stop. Help me.
Danessa Watkins:My life is useless. So, obviously, the teacher took it seriously. The parents were called to the school for a meeting, and the school pushed them to take Ethan home, but they didn't demand it. The the school counselor was concerned that Ethan was having suicidal ideations, and they told the parents they need to seek help for him within 48 hours. But the parents refused to take him home, and the school couldn't enforce it.
Danessa Watkins:And they said, you know, maybe being in a school setting is is the best thing for him at this time. So they sent him back to class. They didn't check his locker. They didn't check his bag. The parents also did not disclose that they had just purchased him a handgun, 5 days earlier.
Jack Sanker:Just bonkers.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. So
Jack Sanker:And to not be like, you know what? Is the handgun still in the drawer? Like, did you look. Let's
Danessa Watkins:Like, maybe maybe let's take a pause, go home, and check. Just you know?
Jack Sanker:I mean, I of course, all of this is 2020 Right. With respect.
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:But
Danessa Watkins:yeah. But yeah. So he returned to class. And then later that afternoon walked out of a bathroom with a gun and began firing. Investigators found an empty gun case and empty ammunition box on the parent's bed, as well as a cable that could have been used to lock the gun, but it was still in its package unopened.
Jack Sanker:Show. Yeah. That's brutal. I I do. I am interested.
Jack Sanker:And I I'd be surprised if the school is not subject
Danessa Watkins:it. So I, you know, I it just kind of always a pop that a thought that popped into my head. So it could be
Jack Sanker:Your instinct here is is correct that, well, wait a second. You know, you knew, you know, you knew or should have known that this kid posed a threat. The evidence of that is that you called his parents and to tell them exactly that, and you didn't do, x y z to present this or to prevent this shooting, such as do a routine locker or backpack check, which they do all the time for, like, like, I don't know, for, obviously, for, like, drugs and things like that. But, like, when I was in middle school, if you, like, were suspected of having Pokemon cards, like, Pokemon cards in school. So Yeah.
Jack Sanker:The point is is that schools, like, have this capacity, and
Danessa Watkins:For sure.
Jack Sanker:We do it all the time for so yeah. You I think that they're, it's interesting. I don't think that the school ought to be subject to criminal liability, probably not. And there's I don't think that they could be. But I wouldn't be surprised if there is there may already be, civil actions pending involving the school.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. I mean, my my mom is actually, she was a guidance counselor at my high school for 30, 35 years. And, yeah, there were definitely times where a student, you know, came in and had some type of you know, showed signs of violence, and she shut down her whole day and spent it with that kid. You know? Clear the schedule.
Danessa Watkins:This is my priority.
Jack Sanker:Oh, yeah. Well, I I went to a metal detector school, so we all the guns got got clocked at the door. You think I'm joking, but, yeah, they did. But the Pokemon cards were the big thing. But I might I'm saying that as a bit as a joke, but, like, schools routinely, intervene in these scenarios over, like, what they deem contraband, you know, which is, I think, like, drugs or but also just, like, things that like, it used to be you could have a cell phone.
Jack Sanker:Right? And they would be like, oh, you have a cell phone in your locker. Like, we have to take that till the end of the day or whatever. Stuff like that would get you in trouble. So it is it does seem like they've dropped the ball here.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. Yeah. Well, so earlier this year in January, the mother stood trial. She, she ended up being found guilty on all four counts of involuntary manslaughter after the jury deliberated for just 11 hours. And then in March, the father had a week long trial, and he was also found guilty on all four counts of involuntary manslaughter.
Danessa Watkins:So the 15 years is the max sentence for that crime in Michigan, and the prosecutor asked for 10 to 15 years for both of the parents. And then on April 9th, the judge sentenced both parents each 10 to 15 years in prison. So, you know, certainly, there was no precedent for this case. The Crumbleys were the first parents to be held directly responsible for a school shooting carried out by their child, which essentially turns on its head the Now I found a article in the 70 4, and they interviewed Ikao Yankao, a University of Michigan law professor. He voiced some serious concerns about this saying that going forward, if we have other parents that are being charged in connection with shootings that are acted out by their children, then this Crumley conviction may make them more likely to accept a plea deal behind closed doors.
Danessa Watkins:So so he said court
Jack Sanker:More likely to lock their guns up.
Danessa Watkins:Oh, well, yeah. I mean, that's the other side of it. So this this is just giving, you know, the the side of it, I guess, more from the legal perspective of
Jack Sanker:how prosecutors could start to use
Danessa Watkins:this as a prosecutors could start to use this as a sword. So what he said was prosecutors will be tempted to use this power in ways that we don't see. A prosecutor is going to sit across from a parent when people are crying out for somebody to be held accountable, and the prosecutor is going to be able to say, I'm offering you 3 to 5 years in prison. But if you don't take this deal, I will prosecute for 15 years. Evan Bernick, a professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law, had similar concerns that he voiced to Al Jazeera.
Danessa Watkins:He said there's a saying, hard cases make bad law, which means that there's always an initial horrifying case that's used to justify the expansion of criminal law. Then there are a whole class of cases that you don't see, that you don't get national attention, end quote. And then he talked about how he could see that this case could be used against the marginalized communities. You know, those parents who are working 3 jobs, you know, trying to make ends meet, and then their kid does, you know, some it doesn't need to be homicide, but, you know, does something criminal. Right.
Danessa Watkins:They didn't they weren't supervising them because they're, you know, trying to put food on the table. And now, you know, the the community's gonna cry out, and so the prosecutor's gonna say, hey. You know, take this take this plea deal.
Jack Sanker:I think at a the the fact that this was manslaughter conviction. Right?
Danessa Watkins:Involuntary manslaughter.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. That's that's so I mean, that that's a bit that's so interesting. I think if the state of Michigan is if the state of Michigan if you're listening, Michigan, it could actually, like, narrow this in a way that still incentivizes parents because I I think taking a broad brush like a voluntary manslaughter and then applying it to the facts of, like, this case, but then opening it up to other things, slaughter and then applying it to the facts of, like, this case, but then opening it up to other things down the road, as you mentioned, does, kick the door open for prosecutorial misuse.
Danessa Watkins:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:But, if you think if the state of Michigan has a compelling interest in preventing school shootings or whatever or just preventing any shootings, there is, you know, the the argument that gun safety advocates have been making for decades, which is, registration of the firearm. And if your if your firearm and unless and we'll we'll give broad exceptions to the rule here. But if if your firearm is is used to commit a crime, there's a statutory violation of that. And it's I mean, maybe it's prison time, maybe it's fine or probation or whatever. And I mean, unless it's, like, stolen from you or, you know, there's some excuses to how it end up in someone else's hands.
Jack Sanker:But I think something like that applied to these facts here would make a lot more sense and then also prevent prosecutors from having the discretion to heap criminal charges on the parents who who maybe don't deserve it. I'm not saying these parents in this case didn't, by the way.
Danessa Watkins:Right. But it yeah. It's it's like the professor said that, you know, you take these egregious cases and then but they do set the precedent going forward for cases that maybe, you know, the evidence isn't so glaring that that the parents dropped the ball. Now there are, parental responsibility laws nationwide, and those do impose civil or criminal liability on adults under the premise that their failures to take control as parents led to their kids' bad acts. However, these laws are generally premised on the idea that the child who committed the crime is unemancipated.
Danessa Watkins:So it's it's kinda like a vicarious liability Yeah. There is adult. So the law adult. So the law considered him a legal agent responsible for his own actions and yet still found that the parents, you know, were approximate cause of these deaths.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. Which is a bit tenuous the more you think about it, even if you agree or are agreeable to the outcome here.
Danessa Watkins:You know, on the other end of the spectrum, certainly for gun control advocates and the parents of those children who have been killed in their classrooms, this landmark trial outcome was was certainly welcomed. Organizations such as Everytown For Gun Safety say that verdicts like these could have a deterrent effect, help prevent future mass shootings, you know, serving a warning about safely securing guns, essentially, all the things that you said. But, you know, even in the wake of these these new laws that are coming out, we don't have the evidence about whether they're actually preventing crimes. You know, so hopefully, there will start to be some research on those and and what the effects are, especially in the wake of this decision. And I'm sure, you know, there it's gonna continue to to have effects rippling through our system.
Danessa Watkins:So,
Jack Sanker:what's interesting is that the giving the perspective on on the kinda 2 a rights that that those people are so concerned about Mhmm. Because there's no prior restraint on, you know, purchase or or or added regulations to guns or gun purchases or ownership or whatever. Mhmm. It's just, added consequences for when things go wrong, which, you know, ought to be self regulating, but, you know, that's not exactly how everyone works. So it'll be interesting to see I have not seen whether this has been kind of played out in the various media spheres as, you know, either good or bad for gun owners who or gun rights advocacy people Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:Who tend to take positions on these cases.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:I just haven't seen, like, you know, those groups being, like, this is, good or bad for us. But I I it is less burdensome to give the prosecutors discretion to do this if you wanna regulate this type of thing, but is bad for all the other reasons we talked about.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think we're it's it's a continuing problem in our country. I think we're looking for, obviously, ways to, deter this type of violence, but also, you know, new people to blame. I don't know.
Danessa Watkins:I mean, I know you covered I think it was in episode 11, Sandy Hook, and then episode 26, the Ivaldi Tragedies. But I and I think those discussions were focused more on the gun manufacturers. Mhmm. But, you know, there there have been no consequences to that end of things. So, you know, I guess this is just the the next attempt to try to curtail this.
Danessa Watkins:So that's our show. Thank you for listening. Remember, you can find us Litigation Nation wherever you get your podcasts, Apple, Spotify, YouTube. Please subscribe,