CNN: Attorney Lauren Johnson-Norris Discusses Georgia School Shooting Case and Parent 9-6-24

[Speaker 2]

Lauren Johnson-Norris is the criminal defence attorney at Johnson Criminal Law Group. She's with me now, good to see you, thank you. We have a lot to get through.

Let's just deal with this question of the father being charged. This has overtones of the Crumleys, which are where of course both parents were charged for neglect and a variety of many offences and have been sentenced subsequently. I know two cases doesn't make a trend, but the speed with which the Georgia authorities have gone after the father, I mean, are your eyebrows raised?

[Speaker 1]

Well, I think a lot of our eyebrows are raised in the legal community, but I'll say the Georgia authorities were already familiar with the father in this minor, so they had his information. They already knew that there was something that was going on that may have led to this coming up, but I will say in the criminal law, it is unusual. We just don't see adults being held responsible for other people's conduct.

We just don't see parents being held responsible for juvenile's conduct. Maybe in the civil system, we see that as a matter of restitution or financial damages, but seeing this happening in the criminal law certainly raises eyebrows to those of us who defend people in this system.

[Speaker 2]

Now, if I remember back to the Crumleys, the evidence, I mean, you know, clearly they did not intend for their son to go out shooting, but the evidence was very strong that they were oblivious to the point of negligence, to the point of criminal liability, and that's going to be the issue here. It's not just enough for the father to have been a bit weird and about guns. They're going to have to prove that there was a causal link between what he did to face such serious charges.

[Speaker 1]

They do have to prove that, and I don't think it's that easy. You know, we're dealing in this case with a kid who was 14 years old. It's a little different than a 17-year-old in terms of that child's development, mental, emotional development.

Here we knew that this child had some, had made some threats, though he denied it. His father said, I won't allow him access to guns, but strangely then provided him a firearm after that. The question is, would this father, was he so negligent that he should be held responsible for the acts of this 14-year-old?

And don't get me wrong, what happened here is absolutely horrible. We just didn't see in the penal law one individual held responsible for the acts of another. So this parent-child relationship and how we view parents and what they are responsible in terms of what their kids do, that's sort of the new question, the new frontier we're facing in the courts.

[Speaker 2]

And that, I'm glad you talked about that new frontier, because what's happening is it is being explored literally in front of us, the parameters of it, both in terms of the evidential issues required, and I suspect in the various appeals that will follow to find out what the legal, the legal extent of liability and culpability is.

[Speaker 1]

It's a great point, because how the community feels when we are all outraged, saddened and filled with emotion about what's happened here. But the law is supposed to be free from that emotion and look really at culpability and responsibility. And that's what lawyers do, is we have to parse that out and ask courts to figure that out.

Where really does the blame lie?

[Speaker 2]

So let's talk about how we get to 180-odd years. He's not going to get anything like that if convicted. I assume it's because of the number of victims, you go by each number for the number of years for each victim and you multiply it out.

What is the 14-year-old's facing? Similarly, very large sentences if convicted.

[Speaker 1]

He is looking at potentially a life sentence, though his age would mitigate against that. But I will say there's sort of incompatible theories of the case here that the prosecution has brought forward as it relates to this 14-year-old. On one hand, they right away brought him to adult court so that he should be treated like an adult.

On the other hand, they're saying his father should have recognized that as a child that he was responsible for his behavior. And so I don't know how the prosecution reconciles that, but it'll be the job of the defense lawyers to come in and say, those are untenable theories. At the same time, you have to elect one and pick one, either treat him like a child or treat him like an adult.

[Speaker 2]

Lauren, humor me, if you will, and extrapolate this out into how much of a leap is it? So, father knows that son is disturbed. Father gives son car for birthday.

Son drives car into crowd at concert. Father liable a la this case.

[Speaker 1]

We just don't see it. I've represented people in horrible circumstances, unfortunately, and we just don't see parents being held responsible in the system. We have an entire juvenile delinquency system with children who are charged with very serious crimes, and we just don't see parents being charged.

Now, some states are exploring those laws with parental responsibility laws, but I can tell you, as a practitioner, we just don't see it.

[Speaker 2]

Yet. Thank you very much indeed. I'm grateful to you.

Very kind of you. Have a good weekend. Thank you.