A former assistant principal at a Virginia elementary school is now on trial for eight counts of felony child neglect, accused of ignoring repeated warnings that a 6-year-old student had a loaded gun in his backpack before he walked into a first-grade classroom and shot his teacher in the chest.

Ebony Parker, who served as assistant principal at Richneck Elementary School in Newport News, Virginia, faces charges alleging she acted with "reckless disregard for human life" on January 6, 2023, the day the boy pulled a 9mm handgun from his belongings and fired at teacher Abigail Zwerner. Each of the eight felony counts corresponds to one bullet in the weapon the child brought to school, Newsmax reported.

Three warnings, zero action

Prosecutors painted a damning picture during opening statements. Special prosecutor Josh Jenkins told the jury that multiple school employees flagged the danger to Parker before the shooting occurred, and that she failed to search the child, remove him from the classroom, or report the threat to anyone who could intervene.

"Warning after warning after warning, she did nothing."

Jenkins also framed Parker as the sole person in the building who possessed both the knowledge and the authority to stop what happened. AP News reported his statement to the jury: "There was only one person in the school that day that had both the authority to act and the knowledge of the ongoing crisis, and that person, you will see, was Dr. Parker."

Zwerner's civil attorney, Diane Toscano, has previously described the cascade of failures in stark terms. In earlier proceedings tied to a $40 million lawsuit Zwerner filed against the school board and former administrators, Toscano told jurors that three separate school employees warned administration over the course of a few hours that the boy had a gun and was threatening people.

"Over the course of a few hours, three different times, three times, school administration was warned by concerned teachers and employees that the boy had a gun on him at school and was threatening people. But the administration could not be bothered."

That quote, drawn from National Review's reporting on the broader legal fallout, captures the central theory of both the criminal and civil cases against Parker: that the shooting was preventable and that inaction, not mere ignorance, allowed it to happen.

The shooting and its aftermath

Toscano reconstructed the moment of the shooting during opening statements in the civil trial. She told jurors that at 1:58 p.m. on January 6, 2023, the 6-year-old fired a single round that struck Zwerner's hand before passing into her chest.

"1:58 p.m., BANG! A bullet went through Abby's hand, then through her chest."

The bullet remains lodged in Zwerner's body. Doctors determined that removing it posed greater health risks than leaving it in place, the New York Post reported. Zwerner spent nearly two weeks in the hospital and underwent six surgeries. She no longer has full use of her left hand.

Zwerner, a first-grade teacher, has described the boy as having shown violent warning signs before the shooting. Her testimony and the accounts of fellow staff members form the backbone of the prosecution's case: that the danger was not hidden, not subtle, and not unforeseeable. It was flagged, in real time, to the one administrator who could have acted.

The defense: an unforeseeable act

Parker's defense attorneys have pushed back against the prosecution's narrative. They have previously argued that the shooting was "unforeseeable," a position that asks the jury to weigh whether any reasonable school administrator would have anticipated that a 6-year-old child would fire a weapon inside a classroom.

Toscano addressed that argument head-on during the civil trial. She told jurors that anticipating exactly this kind of threat was Parker's job.

"Who would think a 6-year-old is going to bring a gun to school and shoot their teacher? Dr. Parker's job is to believe that is possible."

The foreseeability question sits at the heart of both proceedings. Prosecutors in the criminal case must prove not just that Parker knew about the warnings, but that her failure to act rose to the level of reckless disregard for the safety of the children in her care. The defense will likely argue that the situation, while tragic, did not present the kind of clear and immediate danger that would make inaction criminal.

Civil verdict already on the books

Parker enters her criminal trial with a significant civil judgment already hanging over her. A jury previously awarded Zwerner $10 million after finding that Parker ignored repeated warnings about the armed child, Just The News reported. That verdict came as part of a broader $40 million lawsuit Zwerner filed against the school board and former Richneck Elementary administrators, alleging that systemic negligence contributed to the shooting.

The civil finding does not bind the criminal jury, but it establishes that one panel of citizens already weighed the evidence and concluded Parker bears responsibility. The criminal standard is higher. Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence.

How the child got the gun

The 6-year-old obtained the firearm from his mother's purse, according to Newsmax's account of the case. His mother, Deja Nicole Taylor, was indicted on a felony charge of child neglect and a misdemeanor count of recklessness with a loaded firearm. Taylor has since received a prison sentence in connection with the case.

Prosecutors declined to charge the child himself, citing concerns about whether a 6-year-old could meaningfully stand trial. Instead, they sought a special grand jury to consider additional charges against adults whose actions or inaction may have contributed to the shooting. Newport News Commonwealth Attorney Howard Gwynn acknowledged the unusual nature of the case at the time.

"Every criminal case is unique in its facts, and these facts support these charges, but our investigation into the shooting continues."

What the jury must decide

The criminal trial now underway will force jurors to answer a narrow but consequential question: Did Ebony Parker's response to the warnings she received on January 6, 2023, constitute felony child neglect under Virginia law? Eight counts, one for each round in the weapon, mean that a conviction could carry substantial prison time.

Investigators and prosecutors have laid out a timeline in which at least three school employees raised alarms before the shooting. Parker's defense will need to explain why those warnings did not, or should not have, triggered a search, a lockdown, or a call to law enforcement. The jury will weigh whether "unforeseeable" is a credible description of a threat that multiple adults saw coming.

Fox News reported on Zwerner's account of the boy's violent warning signs, testimony that could prove critical as jurors assess whether Parker had reason to take the threat seriously.

Zwerner still carries a bullet in her chest. Three warnings went up the chain that day. The question for this jury is whether the person at the top of that chain committed a crime by doing nothing.