How an Ethics Probe in the Crumbley Case Exposes the Limits of Prosecutorial Accountability in Michigan
Michigan has no shortage of prosecutorial power. What it lacks entirely though, are reliable mechanisms to hold powerful prosecutors accountable for misconduct, public communications abuses, and due process failures. The recent revelation that the Attorney Grievance Commission is probing allegations that a high-profile prosecutor crossed ethical lines in the Crumbley cases highlights this institutional gap.
This development should concern every Michigander because it underscores how concentrated power in prosecutor offices can go largely unchecked. even when attorneys tasked with enforcing the law are challenged for crossing ethical boundaries.
This comes on the heels of a developing prosecutorial accountability story in Barry County, Michigan. Read more here.
What the Ethics Probe Says
According to reporting, the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC) has opened an investigation into allegations that Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald may have violated professional conduct standards in connection with her office’s handling of the Oxford High School shooting prosecutions.
The AGC investigates claims that attorneys violated the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. A probe itself does not prove misconduct, but it does signal that allegations have enough substance to rise above speculation and trigger oversight.
This Is Not the First Time Clutch Has Raised Accountability Questions About Karen McDonald
More specifically, it was on this exact issue.
Clutch Justice reported in January 2025 that McDonald’s office spent more than $100,000 on crisis communications firms during the Oxford prosecutions, an incredibly controversial use of taxpayer funds that defense lawyers described as part of a “smear campaign” against defendants’ families. This reporting raised constitutional questions about due process, public funds, and prosecutorial boundaries in high-profile cases.
Those concerns weren’t abstract: defense filings and motions pointed to alleged undisclosed agreements with key witnesses, aggressive public relations efforts used to shape public and media narratives, and refusals to address due process allegations directly.
Why This Matters Beyond Headlines
Prosecutors wield extraordinary power in Michigan’s justice system. They decide who to charge, what evidence to produce, how to communicate in the press, and how to frame narratives about trauma and criminal conduct. Yet Michigan has no direct public prosecutor oversight board elected statewide or routine reporting requirements that tie prosecutorial communication decisions to ethical accountability.
When a prosecutor’s conduct becomes the subject of an AGC probe, it does not mean wrongdoing has been proven, merely that the system’s self-regulatory mechanism has been triggered. Even then, outcomes vary widely: many AGC investigations resolve quietly, and discipline is rare relative to the number of credible misconduct reports.
What sets the current situation apart is that multiple accountability mechanisms are now playing out in parallel:
- Media and public scrutiny of crisis communications spending and alleged smear tactics.
- Defense motions and appellate filings alleging due process failures and prosecutorial overreach.
- An ethics oversight investigation by the AGC.
None of these alone would necessarily upend a prosecutor’s career. Combined, they reflect a credibility challenge across forums.
The Bigger Problem: Accountability in Prosecutor Offices
Michigan voters have leverage over prosecutor behavior only once every four years at the ballot box. There is no statewide prosecutorial oversight authority. There are no routine public audits of prosecutor office public relations spending. And ethics complaints, even when they lead to AGC probes, often move slowly and without significant public disclosure.
When any prosecutor pushes media narratives, contracts expensive crisis communications firms, and faces allegations of overreach, and all of this happens in parallel with calls for review by an independent grievance body, it illustrates a fundamental imbalance of power and privilege.
One where the power to prosecute remains strong while mechanisms to hold prosecutors accountable remain weak.
What Clutch Will Continue Reporting
Clutch Justice will continue to track:
- The progress and findings of the AGC investigation.
- Defense counsel filings and appellate challenges tied to prosecutorial conduct.
- Public expenditure and communications strategies deployed by prosecutor offices.
- Structural reforms proposed by policy advocates for prosecutor transparency and ethics enforcement.
Michigan’s justice system depends on prosecutors operating within ethical and constitutional boundaries. When allegations of misconduct—whether in court filings, public reporting, or formal oversight probes—gain traction, the question becomes not just what happened, but how the system responds.
Because unchecked prosecutorial power benefits no one except power itself.
