DETROIT − More than two years after the Oxford High School massacre, a historic trial begins this week for Jennifer Crumbley, as prosecutors seek to do what has never been done before: hold parents criminally responsible for a deadly mass school shooting.

After months of legal feuding and mudslinging by lawyers, it will finally be up to a jury to decide this unprecedented issue. Legal experts stress the first critical task at hand, jury selection, could decide the case.

Tuesday, a pool of prospective jurors will fill a Michigan courtroom, where both sides will try to seat an impartial jury that can set aside emotions and opinions, and decide the fate of a mother whose teenage son murdered four classmates, using a gun his parents bought him as an early Christmas present.

Both James and Jennifer Crumbley are charged with involuntary manslaughter. The charges are linked to their son, Ethan Crumbley, who at 15 years old killed four and wounded seven people at his school on Nov. 30, 2021. The son pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison. James Crumbley's trial is scheduled to start March 5.

The prosecution has long portrayed the Crumbleys as selfish and uncaring parents who ignored a mentally troubled son and bought him a gun instead of getting him help. The defense, however, says the parents had no way of knowing their son would carry out a mass killing, that the gun at issue was properly secured and that the charges are an overreach for parents everywhere.

"Jury selection will be especially important in this case," said former federal prosecutor Mark Chutkow. "Given the risks of a hung jury in a groundbreaking case like this, the prosecutors will be looking for nonpolarizing jurors who can work collaboratively with people of different backgrounds to reach a verdict."

Veteran defense attorney Art Weiss said picking open-minded jurors will be key, though noted the verdict could come down to this: "Who is better at jury selection may have an edge."

Jurors will no doubt have a daunting task in an emotional and complex case involving parental rights, guns, mental health and the pervasive problem of gun violence in America's schools. Perhaps most noteworthy, if the Crumbleys are convicted, it could set a legal precedent for parents nationwide.

How many mass killings this year?UNLV shooting victims join growing number of lives lost to gun violence

Here's what jurors have to decide

To win their case, the prosecution must convince the jury that the Crumbleys were grossly negligent by ignoring a mentally ill son who was spiraling out of control, and bought him a gun instead of getting him help. Prosecutors must show that the shooter's actions were "reasonably foreseeable" given what his parents knew about him: He was depressed, lonely, hallucinating, texting his mom that he was seeing demons throw bowls around the house, and hearing toilets flush when no one was home.

Prosecutors also argue the parents, more than anyone else, could have prevented the shooting had they disclosed to the school that their son had access to a gun on the morning they were summoned to the school over his troubling behavior. Ethan Crumbley had drawn on a math worksheet a picture of a gun, a bleeding body, and the words, "The thoughts won't stop, help me."

The parents vowed to get their son help in the coming days, then returned to their jobs without telling school officials their son had access to a gun. Their son went back to class. Two hours later, he emerged from a school bathroom and opened fire, killing four students and injuring seven others, including a teacher.

Why prosecutors say the parents are responsible

At issue, legal experts say, are two key questions: Did the parents know or "reasonably foresee" their son might open fire at his school? And, did they have a legal duty to inform the school their son had access to a gun?

The prosecution argues the answer to both questions is yes.

"The duty owed here is to prevent the community from their son intentionally harming somebody when they knew he was preoccupied with violent material, that he had access to a gun, he could use it when he wanted to and he was disturbed," Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald previously argued. "It's a parental duty. It goes far beyond careless. It's gross negligence."

At trial, prosecutors plan to show jurors text messages the shooter sent a friend about his mental health problems and a journal he kept before the shooting, in which he claimed his parents ignored his pleas for help.

Defense attorneys Shannon Smith and Mariell Lehman, who are representing the Crumbleys, have maintained their clients never saw this journal, did not know about it, nor about text messages their son sent to a friend in which he alleged his parents wouldn't get him help for his mental health struggles.

Moreover, the defense has argued there is no evidence the teen ever told his parents that he planned to carry out a mass shooting, nor is there evidence the parents knew he would do this.

"The element that they can never prove is that Jennifer and James Crumbley knew that their son was going to commit the school shooting," Smith said. "The prosecution knows this, which is why they stretched hard to make these people look like the worst parents in the world."

Picking the jury: Cut anyone 'too polarizing'

Defense lawyers and prosecutors alike concede that in picking the jury for the Crumbleys, anyone who comes off as too polarizing or too opinionated should be excused.

"I learned as a prosecutor that rather than look for individual jurors who might be good for the government's case, it is more important to think of the jury collectively," said former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, a former federal prosecutor in Detroit. She noted the jurors in the Crumbleys' trials, as in all trials, will need to work together to follow the law and reach decisions based on facts.

"I would remove anyone who would be too polarizing, even if I thought they might otherwise favor my side, because they might make the job of the group more difficult," McQuade said.

Longtime criminal defense attorney Bill Swor stressed the defense will want jurors "who demonstrate their ability to think independently and analytically."

Perhaps most noteworthy, he said: "They will look for people who are skeptical of the government."

Gun issues a factor in selecting jurors

Weiss agreed, saying he would want Crumbley jurors who are "skeptical of governmental heavy-handedness" and "willing to stand up for what they believe is right, regardless of how others may feel."

Weiss cautioned, however, the topic of guns should be "broached carefully" when questioning jurors in this case, stressing that some people are "very lofty about being very, very careful" with how guns are used, while others have a more "anything goes" attitude.

Chutkow, a former federal prosecutor, agreed, noting: "Gun owners and gun-rights advocates might be risky for both parties."

"On the one hand, such jurors might not appreciate how the Crumbleys handled their son's gun," Chutkow said. "On the other hand, they might not like the idea of expanding criminal responsibility for someone else's misuse of a gun."

From a prosecutor's perspective, Chutkow said, the prosecution will be looking for jurors with life and professional career experience, particularly those with backgrounds in managing or supervising others. They will also try to identify people with a strong sense of personal responsibility and accountability.

Multiple courts have spoken: Jury must decide Crumbleys' fates

From the time of the Crumbleys' arrests, the defense has sought to have the case dismissed. Multiple courts have ruled against them, concluding a jury should hear the case.

The first judge to do this was District Court Judge Julie Nicholson, who on Feb. 24, 2022, ordered the Crumbleys to stand trial on involuntary manslaughter charges, concluding they could have stopped the rampage carried out by their "troubled" son.

More:Oxford school shooter's mom won't have affair used against her in trial

On March 23, 2023, the Michigan Court of Appeals ordered the Crumbleys to stand trial, concluding their son's mass shooting was "reasonably foreseeable, and that is the ultimate test that must be applied."

The Crumbleys appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case and consequently sent it to trial.

Other parents plead guilty in shootings

While the Crumbleys are the first parents in America charged in a mass school shooting, other parents have recently faced a similar fate for similar gun crimes.

And they've been convicted.

In Illinois, in a case similar to the Crumbleys, the father of the accused Highland Park mass shooter recently started his 60-day prison sentence after pleading guilty to reckless conduct on the day his trial was to start. Illinois prosecutors argued the father should have known his son was a danger to the public when the son applied for a gun ownership identification card.

The shooter was 19 years old at the time and needed a parent to sign his application. His dad obliged, even though he allegedly knew his son had violent ideations, threatened suicide and expressed an interest in committing a mass shooting.

The mother of a 6-year-old who shot his first-grade teacher in Virginia pleaded guilty to child neglect and lying on a background check about her marijuana use while purchasing a handgun — the gun her son used to shoot his teacher. She got 21 months in prison.

The Crumbleys, meanwhile, present the biggest test yet as prosecutors in Michigan seek to hold the parents criminally liable for the deaths of the four students killed, which has never been done before.

The Illinois and Virginia cases did not involve involuntary manslaughter charges, though both had elements similar to the Michigan case: the Illinois father should have known their son was a danger to others, while the Ohio parent was negligent in leaving her gun in an insecure place where her child could get it.

The Crumbleys are accused of both: knowing their son was a danger yet buying him a gun anyway and giving him easy access.