In a critical legal case that tests the boundaries of accountability in mass shootings, a jury has begun deliberations in the manslaughter trial of Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of the teenager who killed four people at a Michigan high school in 2021.

Crumbley, 45, pleaded not guilty to four counts of involuntary manslaughter for her alleged role in the tragic November 2021 shooting at Oxford High School, which resulted in the deaths of four students and injuries to six students and a teacher.

The jury, consisting of six men and six women, started their deliberations on Monday after receiving instructions from the judge. During the deliberations, the jury sought clarification on language in the jury instructions and questioned whether they could consider evidence or witnesses that were not presented at the trial. The judge instructed them to reread a specific section of the instructions and emphasized that they can only consider the evidence presented in court.

Prosecutors argued that Crumbley was responsible for the deaths due to alleged negligence in giving her son access to a firearm and failing to provide him with necessary mental health treatment despite warning signs. Witnesses, including law enforcement officials, school employees, shooting victims, and acquaintances of Jennifer Crumbley, testified for the prosecution, painting a picture of a mother who was allegedly inattentive to her son's well-being.

The defense, however, placed blame on other factors, arguing that Crumbley's husband improperly secured the firearm and that the school failed to notify her about her son's behavioral issues. They also asserted that the teenager, Ethan, acted alone in planning and executing the attack.

During the trial, Jennifer Crumbley took the stand in her own defense and expressed no regret for her actions, stating that she would not have done anything differently. The case has prompted a broader debate on parental responsibility and the extent to which parents can be held accountable for the actions of their children.

The ongoing trial signifies a significant legal endeavor as the prosecution seeks to expand the scope of blame in mass shootings. The case has shed light on the disintegration of a family, delving into complex issues of sex, violence, and mental illness.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Crumbley's husband, James, is scheduled to go on trial in early March facing the same charges. Their son, Ethan, previously pleaded guilty to numerous charges, including terrorism causing death and murder, and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

The prosecution centered its case against Jennifer Crumbley on three key aspects: her knowledge of her son's mental health issues, how he obtained access to the firearm, and her actions during a pivotal meeting at the school on the day of the shooting. Prosecutors argued that Crumbley was aware of her son's deteriorating mental state, pointing to texts he sent to his mother and a friend. However, Crumbley maintained that she interpreted the texts differently and that they were a part of an ongoing joke about their allegedly haunted house.

The prosecution also accused Crumbley of giving the murder weapon to her son and inadequately storing it. Surveillance footage presented during the trial showed Crumbley and Ethan at a gun range, where they were seen shooting just days before the tragic incident. Crumbley testified that she considered the gun storage to be her husband's responsibility.

Regarding the school meeting on the day of the shooting, prosecutors highlighted the Crumbleys' alleged inaction when confronted with disturbing drawings and concerns expressed by school employees regarding Ethan's well-being. The counselor recommended immediate mental health treatment, but the Crumbleys declined, citing work obligations. Shortly after the meeting, the teenager opened fire on his classmates.

While the trial continues to unfold, the verdict will play a significant role in determining the limits of parental responsibility and liability in cases of mass shootings.