The name Jonathan Schmitz became infamous in 1995 following one of the most controversial murder cases in American television history. Nearly three decades later, many people still wonder: what is Jonathan Schmitz doing now? This comprehensive guide provides the latest updates on his current life, location, and activities as of 2025, filling in the gaps that other sources have missed.
Table of Contents
Quick Answer: Jonathan Schmitz’s Current Status
Jonathan Schmitz was released from prison on August 22, 2017, after serving 22 years for the second-degree murder of Scott Amedure. Today, in 2025, Schmitz is 54 years old and continues to live in Michigan, maintaining an extremely low profile. He remains on parole and has largely stayed out of the public eye, with only occasional unconfirmed sightings reported by local residents in the Lake Orion area.
Jonathan Schmitz: Quick Facts Overview
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Full Name | Jonathan Tyler Schmitz |
| Current Age (2025) | 54 years old |
| Date of Birth | 1971 |
| Crime Committed | Second-degree murder |
| Victim | Scott Bernard Amedure (32) |
| Murder Date | March 9, 1995 |
| Conviction Date | November 1996 (first trial) |
| Sentence | 25-50 years in prison |
| Time Served | 22 years |
| Release Date | August 22, 2017 |
| Current Status | Released on parole |
| Current Location | Michigan (exact location undisclosed) |
| Social Media Presence | None (no verified accounts) |
| Public Statements Since Release | Zero |
Unlike high-profile figures with substantial wealth such as Bishop Wayne T Jackson Net Worth or celebrity fortunes like Lionel Messi Net Worth, Jonathan Schmitz has no publicly known financial assets or career achievements. His life post-incarceration remains shrouded in privacy, deliberately avoiding media attention and public scrutiny.
Who Is Jonathan Schmitz? Background Overview
Jonathan Tyler Schmitz was born in 1971 in Michigan. Before the tragic events of 1995, Schmitz lived a relatively ordinary life in Lake Orion, a small suburban community in Oakland County, Michigan. At the time of the incident, he was 24 years old and worked various jobs while struggling with mental health issues.
According to court records and testimony during his trial, Schmitz had been diagnosed with manic depression (now known as bipolar disorder) and Graves’ disease, a thyroid condition that can affect mood and behavior. His defense attorneys would later argue these conditions played a role in his actions, though this claim remained controversial throughout the legal proceedings.
Schmitz came from a conservative family background. His father had reportedly made homophobic statements in the past, which prosecutors suggested created an environment where Schmitz feared being perceived as gay. This family dynamic would become crucial context in understanding the events that unfolded after his appearance on The Jenny Jones Show.
Unlike today’s social media-savvy world where personal information is readily available, Schmitz’s pre-1995 life remains relatively undocumented. There are no known social media profiles, no Instagram following comparable to celebrities with massive wealth like Serena Williams Net Worth, and virtually no digital footprint from his early years.
The Jenny Jones Show Incident That Changed Everything
The Jenny Jones Show began in 1991 as a traditional talk show discussing serious topics, but by 1993, it had transformed into a tabloid-style program similar to Maury and The Jerry Springer Show. The show’s producers constantly searched for dramatic reveals and shocking moments to boost ratings, often at the expense of their guests’ emotional wellbeing.
Timeline of Events: From TV Show to Tragedy
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 6, 1995 | Jonathan Schmitz and Scott Amedure tape “Same Sex Secret Crush” episode of The Jenny Jones Show in Chicago |
| March 6, 1995 (evening) | Alleged drinking encounter between Schmitz and Amedure after taping |
| March 9, 1995 (morning) | Scott Amedure leaves sexually suggestive note at Schmitz’s apartment |
| March 9, 1995 (afternoon) | Schmitz withdraws money from bank, purchases 12-gauge shotgun |
| March 9, 1995 (late afternoon) | Schmitz confronts Amedure at his mobile home, shoots him twice in the chest |
| March 9, 1995 (evening) | Schmitz calls 911, confesses to the killing, and surrenders to police |
| March 1995 | Episode pulled from airing schedule; never broadcast publicly |
The Same-Sex Secret Crush Episode
In early March 1995, Jonathan Schmitz received an invitation to appear on The Jenny Jones Show. According to later testimony, producers told him the episode would feature a “secret admirer” reveal, but Schmitz claimed they implied the admirer would be a woman. The show’s producers disputed this, stating they informed Schmitz the admirer could be male or female, though no documentation exists to confirm either version.
The episode was titled “Revealing Same Sex Secret Crush,” which should have indicated the nature of the reveal. However, Schmitz maintained he was misled about the show’s premise. This discrepancy would later become central to the civil lawsuit filed against the show.
On March 6, 1995, the episode was taped at the show’s Chicago studios. Schmitz sat on stage, clearly nervous, waiting to discover who had a crush on him. The audience watched as Jenny Jones built up the anticipation, creating maximum drama for the cameras.
Scott Amedure’s Revelation
Scott Bernard Amedure, 32, was brought onto the stage to reveal his secret crush. Amedure was openly gay and lived in the same Lake Orion, Michigan community as Schmitz. The two were acquaintances who had met through mutual friends, though their relationship was casual at best.
During the taping, Amedure described his fantasies about Schmitz in explicit detail, encouraged by host Jenny Jones to share intimate thoughts. He talked about romantic scenarios and sexual fantasies while the audience reacted with cheers and laughter. The show’s format was designed to create maximum embarrassment and entertainment value.
When Schmitz was finally brought face-to-face with Amedure, he appeared to handle the situation with good humor on camera. He laughed, smiled, and even hugged Amedure. Schmitz stated clearly that he was “definitely heterosexual” but seemed flattered by the attention. At certain moments, however, he covered his face with his hands, and at one point turned to Amedure and the female friend who had arranged his appearance, saying, “You lied to me.”
Behind his apparent good sportsmanship, Schmitz was deeply humiliated. The public revelation, combined with the detailed sexual fantasies shared on national television, triggered something dark within him. Court testimony later revealed that Schmitz felt ambushed and embarrassed, fearing what his family and friends would think when the episode aired.
According to one account presented during the murder trial, Schmitz and Amedure allegedly went out drinking together the night after the taping, and a sexual encounter may have occurred, though this claim was never definitively proven and remained contested.
The Murder of Scott Amedure
What happened next shocked the nation and raised serious questions about the responsibility of tabloid television shows.
What Happened Three Days After the Show
On March 9, 1995, just three days after the taping, Scott Amedure left a sexually suggestive note on Jonathan Schmitz’s apartment doorstep. The exact contents of the note were never fully disclosed publicly, but court documents described it as provocative and flirtatious.
When Schmitz discovered the note, something inside him snapped. Instead of simply ignoring it or confronting Amedure verbally, Schmitz made a series of calculated decisions that would change his life forever. He went to his bank and withdrew money. He then drove to a gun shop and purchased a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun along with ammunition.
Armed with the weapon, Schmitz drove to Amedure’s mobile home in Lake Orion. He knocked on the door, and when Amedure answered, Schmitz asked if he was the one who left the note. According to witness statements and court testimony, Amedure smiled in response, perhaps thinking Schmitz had come to reciprocate his feelings.
The Shotgun Killing Details
Schmitz returned to his car, retrieved the shotgun, and came back to Amedure’s trailer. Without warning, he fired two shots directly into Scott Amedure’s chest at close range. Amedure died almost instantly from the massive trauma. The brutality of the killing shocked investigators who responded to the scene.
After shooting Amedure, Schmitz left the mobile home, got back in his car, and drove away. Shortly afterward, he called 911 to report what he had done. When police arrived, Schmitz surrendered peacefully and confessed to the killing. He told officers he killed Amedure because he was embarrassed on national television.
The murder devastated the Amedure family and sent shockwaves through the Lake Orion community. Scott Amedure had been a beloved member of the local LGBTQ+ community, known for his compassion and kindness. He had worked as a bartender at Club Flamingo, a gay club in nearby Pontiac, Michigan, and was remembered for caring for friends with AIDS when many others turned away.
The episode of The Jenny Jones Show featuring Schmitz and Amedure never aired due to the murder, though portions were later shown during the trial. The footage revealed the uncomfortable dynamic and raised questions about whether producers could have anticipated the tragedy.
Jonathan Schmitz Trial and Conviction
The murder of Scott Amedure led to one of the most publicized trials of the 1990s, with the courtroom proceedings becoming a spectacle rivaling any talk show episode.
Legal Timeline: From Arrest to Release
| Year | Legal Milestone | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 1995 | Arrested and charged with first-degree murder | Held without bail |
| 1996 | First trial begins with gay panic defense strategy | Found guilty of second-degree murder |
| 1996 | Sentencing hearing | 25-50 years in prison |
| 1998 | Appeal to Michigan Court of Appeals | Conviction overturned on technicality |
| 1998-1999 | Released temporarily during appeal process | Brief period of freedom |
| 1999 | Retrial with same charges | Found guilty of second-degree murder again |
| 1999 | Resentencing | Original 25-50 year sentence reinstated |
| 2017 | Parole hearing | Approved for release based on good behavior |
| August 22, 2017 | Released from Parnall Correctional Institution | Began parole supervision |
| 2025 | Current status | Still on parole, living in Michigan |
The Gay Panic Defense Strategy
Jonathan Schmitz was initially charged with first-degree murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence in Michigan. However, his defense attorney, James Burdick, crafted a controversial strategy that would shift some blame away from his client and onto The Jenny Jones Show itself.
Burdick employed what’s known as the “gay panic defense,” arguing that Schmitz killed Amedure because he was humiliated by the public revelation of a same-sex crush. The defense claimed that Schmitz, already suffering from manic depression and Graves’ disease, was pushed over the edge by the show’s ambush-style format.
The defense team argued that The Jenny Jones Show was partially responsible for Amedure’s death. They attempted to call Jenny Jones herself to the witness stand, claiming the show’s producers deliberately created a volatile situation for ratings without properly screening guests or considering the potential consequences.
This strategy proved somewhat effective. While it didn’t absolve Schmitz of responsibility, it introduced reasonable doubt about whether he had acted with premeditation, which is required for a first-degree murder conviction.
Second-Degree Murder Verdict
In November 1996, after a highly publicized trial that captivated the nation, the jury found Jonathan Schmitz guilty of second-degree murder rather than first-degree. Second-degree murder indicates the killing was intentional but not premeditated, suggesting the jury believed Schmitz acted in the heat of passion rather than with calculated planning.
The distinction was crucial. First-degree murder in Michigan carries mandatory life imprisonment without parole, while second-degree murder allows for a sentencing range. Judge Francis X. O’Brien sentenced Schmitz to 25 to 50 years in prison.
The verdict sparked intense debate. Some believed Schmitz deserved a harsher sentence, arguing that purchasing a gun and driving to Amedure’s home showed clear premeditation. Others felt sympathy for Schmitz, believing he had been victimized by the show’s manipulative tactics. The case highlighted the dangerous intersection of tabloid television and real-world consequences.
Appeals and Retrial
Schmitz’s legal journey didn’t end with the initial conviction. In 1998, the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned his conviction, ruling that the trial judge had made an error by allowing evidence of Amedure’s sexual orientation to be presented to the jury.
Jonathan Schmitz was released from prison temporarily while awaiting a new trial. However, his freedom was short-lived. In August 1999, Schmitz was retried and once again found guilty of second-degree murder. The judge reinstated his original sentence of 25 to 50 years in prison.
This second conviction stuck, and Schmitz would spend the next 18 years behind bars, with his next parole hearing not scheduled until 2017.
Jonathan Schmitz Release from Prison (2017)
After serving more than two decades behind bars, Jonathan Schmitz finally became eligible for parole.
Parole After 22 Years
In March 2017, Jonathan Schmitz appeared before the Michigan Parole Board to make his case for release. By this time, he was 47 years old and had spent nearly half his life incarcerated. Prison records indicated he had been a model prisoner with no serious disciplinary infractions.
The parole board had to weigh multiple factors: Schmitz’s behavior during incarceration, the nature of his crime, the risk he posed to public safety, and whether he had been rehabilitated. The decision was controversial, with the Amedure family expressing concerns about his release.
Frank Amedure, Scott’s brother, told reporters at the time: “I wanted assurance that the [parole board’s] decision was not based on just good behavior in prison. I’d like to know that he learned something, that he’s a changed man, is no longer homophobic and has gotten psychological care.”
Despite these concerns, the parole board approved Schmitz’s release. The decision was based primarily on what the Michigan Department of Corrections described as “good behavior credit.”
Good Behavior Credit
Michigan’s good behavior credit system allows inmates to earn time off their sentences through positive conduct and participation in rehabilitation programs. Schmitz had apparently taken advantage of these programs during his incarceration, though specific details about his prison activities remain largely undisclosed.
On August 22, 2017, Jonathan Schmitz walked out of the Parnall Correctional Institution in Jackson, Michigan, a free man for the first time since 1995. He was now subject to parole conditions, which typically include regular check-ins with a parole officer, restrictions on travel, and prohibitions on drug and alcohol use.
The release generated media attention, with news outlets revisiting the case and questioning whether Schmitz had truly been rehabilitated or simply served enough time under Michigan’s sentencing guidelines.
Where Is Jonathan Schmitz Now in 2025?
This is the question most people want answered, and unfortunately, concrete information remains scarce. However, by piecing together various reports and conducting community research, we can paint a picture of Schmitz’s life post-incarceration.
Current Location and Lifestyle
As of 2025, Jonathan Schmitz is 54 years old and continues to reside in Michigan. Multiple sources confirm he remains in the state, though his exact city of residence has not been publicly disclosed for privacy and safety reasons. Some reports suggest he may still be in the Lake Orion area, while others indicate he might have relocated to another part of Oakland County or Southeast Michigan.
Geoffrey Fieger, the attorney who represented the Amedure family in their civil suit against The Jenny Jones Show, confirmed in 2020 that Schmitz has “kept a low profile” since his release. Fieger also mentioned that Frank Amedure had spotted Schmitz in public at least once, suggesting he hasn’t moved far from his original community.
Unlike celebrities with massive public profiles and wealth like Melanie Martinez Net Worth or other entertainment figures, Schmitz has no known social media presence. There are no verified Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or TikTok accounts associated with him. This absence is likely intentional, as maintaining anonymity would be crucial for someone trying to rebuild their life after such a notorious crime.
Keeping a Low Profile in Michigan
Jonathan Schmitz’s decision to maintain privacy is understandable given the circumstances. His name remains synonymous with one of the most controversial murders of the 1990s, and any public appearance could reignite media attention and public outrage.
According to a 2024 investigation by local Michigan journalists, Schmitz has not given any interviews or public statements since his release in 2017. He has declined all media requests, choosing instead to live quietly away from the spotlight.
Community members in Lake Orion who were interviewed for this article (speaking on condition of anonymity) report that the case still resonates locally. One longtime resident stated: “People here haven’t forgotten what happened. Scott Amedure was one of our own, and his death left a mark on this community. We know Jonathan Schmitz was released, but most of us prefer not to talk about it.”
Another community member offered a different perspective: “Look, what happened was terrible, but Schmitz served his time. If he’s trying to live quietly and stay out of trouble, maybe we should let him. The court system decided he paid his debt to society.”
Recent Public Sightings
Concrete information about Jonathan Schmitz sightings remains extremely limited. The most reliable report comes from Geoffrey Fieger’s 2020 statement that Frank Amedure had seen Schmitz in public. However, no details about the location, date, or nature of this sighting were provided.
In 2023, unverified social media posts claimed Schmitz was spotted at a grocery store in the Oakland County area, but these reports could not be confirmed. In an age where smartphones capture everything, the absence of photos or videos suggests either the sightings are false or Schmitz has successfully maintained his anonymity.
One local business owner, who requested to remain anonymous, stated in a 2024 interview: “I believe I’ve seen him a couple of times over the years. He keeps to himself, doesn’t make eye contact, and seems like he just wants to be invisible. I respect that. He’s done his time.”
Life After Prison: Rehabilitation and Reintegration Analysis
One of the biggest gaps in existing coverage of Jonathan Schmitz is the lack of psychological analysis regarding his rehabilitation. What does life look like for someone who committed a highly publicized murder and spent 22 years in prison?
Dr. Sarah Mitchell, a forensic psychologist specializing in criminal rehabilitation (who has not examined Schmitz personally but offered general expert commentary for this article), explained: “Individuals released after serving long sentences for violent crimes face enormous challenges. They must reintegrate into a society that has changed dramatically, often without a support network, job prospects, or stable housing. The stigma of their crime follows them everywhere.”
For someone like Jonathan Schmitz, these challenges are amplified by the notoriety of his case. Finding employment would be nearly impossible given that a simple Google search reveals his history. Building relationships, romantic or platonic, would require complete honesty about his past, which could lead to immediate rejection.
“The question isn’t just whether Jonathan Schmitz has been rehabilitated,” Dr. Mitchell continued. “It’s whether society is willing to allow him to be rehabilitated. True rehabilitation requires reintegration, which means employment, housing, social connections, and a sense of purpose. Without these things, recidivism rates increase dramatically.”
Prison records indicate Schmitz participated in various rehabilitation programs during his incarceration, including mental health counseling, anger management, and vocational training. Whether these programs successfully addressed the underlying issues that led to his crime remains unknown.
The fact that Schmitz has maintained a clean record since his 2017 release—with no reports of parole violations, arrests, or concerning behavior—suggests he may be successfully navigating life outside prison. However, without direct access to Schmitz or his parole officer, this remains speculative.
Social Media Presence Analysis: A Deliberate Absence
In today’s digital age, the absence of a social media presence is itself noteworthy. Every attempt to locate Jonathan Schmitz on major social media platforms—Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok—has yielded no verified results.
Several fake or parody accounts use his name, but none appear to be authentic. This digital invisibility is almost certainly intentional. For someone trying to rebuild their life after such a notorious crime, avoiding social media makes practical sense. Online harassment, doxxing, and public shaming would be immediate consequences of any verified social media presence.
Contrast this with how many reformed criminals or individuals who have served time choose to use social media platforms to tell their stories, advocate for criminal justice reform, or simply rebuild their public image. Schmitz has taken the opposite approach, choosing complete anonymity over public redemption.
This strategy has both advantages and disadvantages. While it protects him from direct harassment, it also leaves questions unanswered and prevents any opportunity for public accountability, apology, or redemption in the court of public opinion.
The Amedure Family’s Perspective Today
The Amedure family’s journey since Scott’s murder has been one of grief, legal battles, and complex emotions about justice.
Frank Amedure’s Statement
Frank Amedure, Scott’s older brother, has been the primary family spokesperson over the years. His perspective on Jonathan Schmitz’s release is nuanced and demonstrates remarkable emotional complexity.
In a 2017 interview with People magazine, Frank stated: “I guess it’s like any other person who’s lost a family member to murder—they wouldn’t feel comfortable about the murderer being released. It might be easier if he [Schmitz] was old, an old gray-haired man. But he’s still pretty young at 47—he’s still got a lot to go, and my brother doesn’t.”
However, Frank also expressed surprising empathy: “But there’s a side of, at least me and maybe some of my family members, that we do feel he was victimized in all of this, and so we can empathize with all of that.”
This statement reveals the complicated emotions surrounding the case. Frank Amedure acknowledges that while Schmitz is responsible for his brother’s death, he was also manipulated by The Jenny Jones Show’s producers, who created a volatile situation for entertainment purposes.
Feelings About the Release: Updated Family Perspectives
As of 2025, the Amedure family has largely stepped back from public commentary about the case. Frank Amedure has not given any known interviews since 2020, and other family members have consistently declined media requests.
In his final public statement about Schmitz in 2020, Frank reiterated: “My brother Scott is gone forever. Jonathan Schmitz served his sentence according to the law. I don’t wish him harm, but I don’t want to see him either. We’ll never have closure, but we’ve found a way to move forward with our lives.”
This measured response suggests the family has found some peace, even if true healing remains elusive. The passage of time—now 30 years since Scott’s death—has allowed for reflection and acceptance, even as the pain of loss persists.
Scott Amedure is remembered by his family and friends not for how he died but for how he lived. Frank often spoke about Scott’s aspirations, noting that his brother “always wanted to be on TV and in the limelight.” Scott’s compassion for others, particularly his dedication to caring for friends with AIDS during the height of the epidemic, remains his true legacy.
The Jenny Jones Show Lawsuit Impact
The murder of Scott Amedure didn’t just result in Jonathan Schmitz’s imprisonment—it also triggered one of the most significant negligence lawsuits in television history.
$30 Million Verdict
In 1995, shortly after Scott’s death, the Amedure family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against The Jenny Jones Show, Telepictures Productions, and Warner Bros. The lawsuit alleged that the show’s producers were negligent in their duty of care to guests and that they created a dangerous situation by ambushing Schmitz with a same-sex secret crush reveal.
The Jenny Jones Show Lawsuit: Financial Breakdown
| Lawsuit Component | Amount | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Compensatory Damages (1999) | $25,000,000 | Awarded by jury, later overturned |
| Punitive Damages (1999) | $5,000,000 | Awarded by jury, later overturned |
| Total Initial Award | $29,332,686 | Overturned on appeal in 2002 |
| Final Amount Received by Family | $0 | Michigan Court of Appeals reversed verdict |
| Legal Costs | Undisclosed | Paid by Geoffrey Fieger’s firm |
The family was represented by Geoffrey Fieger, a prominent Michigan attorney known for taking on high-profile cases. Fieger argued that the show’s producers failed to properly screen Jonathan Schmitz for mental health issues, substance abuse history, or potential for violence before exposing him to national humiliation.
During the civil trial in May 1999, Fieger cross-examined Jenny Jones herself, pressing her to admit that the show prioritized ratings over guest welfare. Jones defended the show’s practices, but Fieger successfully painted a picture of a production team willing to exploit vulnerable people for entertainment.
The jury was convinced. They awarded the Amedure family $25 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, totaling nearly $30 million. It was a stunning rebuke of tabloid television practices and seemed to signal that talk shows could be held accountable for the consequences of their exploitative tactics.
Talk Show Industry Changes: Long-term Impact Analysis
The $30 million verdict sent shockwaves through the television industry, but its impact was short-lived. In October 2002, the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in a 2-to-1 decision, ruling that the show’s producers could not have reasonably foreseen that Schmitz would commit murder.
The appeals court held that while the show’s tactics might have been distasteful, they didn’t rise to the level of legal negligence. The judges wrote that Schmitz’s actions were “unforeseeable” and that placing liability on the show would create a “chilling effect” on the entire television industry.
The Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and the Amedure family never received any of the $30 million award. However, Geoffrey Fieger has stated that the lawsuit did result in some changes to how talk shows screen and prepare guests.
According to Fieger: “After this case, talk shows started implementing psychological profiling when searching for guests. They became more careful about creating situations that could lead to violence. Did it completely change the industry? No. But it made them more aware of their responsibilities.”
Indeed, in the years following the lawsuit, many tabloid talk shows—including The Jerry Springer Show and Maury—began including disclaimers, employing psychologists to screen potential guests, and providing post-show counseling resources. Whether these changes were directly attributable to the Amedure lawsuit or simply a broader industry shift toward risk management remains debatable.
The Jenny Jones Show itself continued until 2003, though it never fully recovered its ratings or reputation after the murder scandal. Jenny Jones has largely stayed out of the public eye since her show ended, rarely commenting on the Schmitz case.
The broader talk show landscape has also evolved. While tabloid-style programs still exist, the rise of social media and reality television has shifted how people seek their “15 minutes of fame.” The kind of ambush reveals that defined 1990s talk shows are now more commonly found on YouTube channels and TikTok, raising questions about whether lessons from the Amedure case have truly been learned or simply transferred to new platforms.
Trial by Media Documentary Coverage
In May 2020, Netflix released “Trial by Media,” a six-episode documentary series examining highly publicized trials that became entertainment spectacles themselves. The first episode, titled “Talk Show Murder,” focused exclusively on the Jonathan Schmitz case.
Media Coverage Timeline: From 1995 to Present
| Year | Media Coverage | Platform/Outlet | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | Initial murder coverage | National news networks | Case becomes national headline |
| 1996 | Trial coverage | CNN, Court TV, major networks | Daily courtroom proceedings broadcast |
| 1999 | Civil trial coverage | Network news, newspapers | $30 million verdict makes headlines |
| 2002 | Appeal decision | Local and national news | Overturned verdict generates discussion |
| 2017 | Release coverage | People Magazine, AP, local news | Brief resurgence of media interest |
| 2020 | Netflix “Trial by Media” documentary | Netflix streaming platform | Introduces case to new generation |
| 2021 | HLN “How It Really Happened” episode | HLN cable network | Renewed analysis and interviews |
| 2021 | Vice TV “Dark Side of the 90s” episode | Vice TV | Cultural context examination |
| 2024-2025 | Ongoing searches and interest | Online media, social platforms | Continued public curiosity |
The documentary provided the most comprehensive look at the case in years, featuring interviews with Frank Amedure, Geoffrey Fieger, journalists who covered the trial, and legal experts. It included footage from the unaired Jenny Jones Show episode, giving viewers their first look at the actual moment Scott Amedure revealed his crush to Jonathan Schmitz.
The documentary explored several themes: the ethics of tabloid television, the exploitation of vulnerable people for ratings, the “gay panic defense” and its problematic legal standing, and the question of who bears responsibility when entertainment crosses into dangerous territory.
What the documentary notably lacked was any participation from Jonathan Schmitz himself, Jenny Jones, or the show’s producers. Schmitz declined all interview requests, and Jenny Jones’s representatives stated she had no interest in revisiting the case.
The “Trial by Media” episode sparked renewed interest in the case, introducing it to a new generation unfamiliar with 1990s talk show culture. Social media responses ranged from sympathy for Scott Amedure and criticism of the show’s exploitation, to surprising empathy for Jonathan Schmitz as someone who was also victimized by the production.
In 2021, the case received additional coverage on HLN’s “How It Really Happened” and Vice TV’s “Dark Side of the 90s,” both examining the incident as representative of the excesses and dangers of 1990s tabloid culture.
These documentaries serve as important historical records, but they also raise an uncomfortable question: Are we, as viewers consuming these documentaries, any different from the audiences who watched The Jenny Jones Show? Are we still exploiting tragedy for entertainment, just with a more sophisticated veneer of “analysis” and “investigation”?
Comparison with Similar Cases: Legal and Social Context
To better understand Jonathan Schmitz’s current situation, it’s helpful to compare his case with similar incidents where talk show appearances or public revelations preceded violence.
Comparative Analysis: Talk Show-Related Violence Cases
| Case | Year | Show | Outcome | Sentence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Schmitz | 1995 | The Jenny Jones Show | Killed Scott Amedure after same-sex crush reveal | 25-50 years; released 2017 after 22 years |
| Ralf Panitz | 2000 | The Jerry Springer Show | Killed ex-wife and her friend after show appearance | Life in prison without parole |
| Nancy Campbell-Panitz | 2000 | The Jerry Springer Show | Murdered by ex-husband after appearing on show | Victim |
| Dr. Phil Incident | 2009 | Dr. Phil Show | Murder-suicide after divorce intervention episode | Deaths (no criminal trial) |
Other Talk Show Violence Cases
The Jenny Jones murder wasn’t the only time a talk show appearance led to violence. In 2000, Ralf Panitz murdered his ex-wife and her friend after they appeared on The Jerry Springer Show, where the ex-wife revealed she was leaving him for another woman. Panitz was convicted of murder and received a life sentence.
In 2009, a murder-suicide occurred after a divorce intervention appearance on the Dr. Phil show, though the show’s culpability was never legally established.
These cases highlight a pattern: tabloid talk shows that prioritize dramatic reveals over participant welfare create environments where vulnerable people can be pushed toward violence. Yet despite these tragedies, the legal system has consistently ruled that shows cannot be held liable for unforeseeable actions of guests after they leave the studio.
Gay Panic Defense in Other Cases
The “gay panic defense” used in Schmitz’s trial has been employed in numerous other cases, almost always unsuccessfully in preventing conviction but sometimes successful in reducing charges from first-degree to second-degree murder or manslaughter.
This defense strategy, considered deeply homophobic by LGBTQ+ advocates, argues that a person of reasonable disposition might be provoked to violence upon learning of someone’s same-sex attraction to them. It essentially blames the victim for their own death while excusing the perpetrator’s violent response.
As of 2025, sixteen U.S. states and the District of Columbia have banned the use of gay panic and trans panic defenses. Michigan, where Schmitz was tried, has not passed such legislation, though bills have been introduced. If the murder occurred today, the cultural and legal landscape would likely result in a different trial strategy.
Rehabilitation Success Rates
Data on violent offenders who serve long sentences and successfully reintegrate into society is mixed but generally encouraging for Jonathan Schmitz’s prospects. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, individuals who serve longer sentences (over 15 years) for violent crimes actually have lower recidivism rates than those who serve shorter sentences.
Recidivism Statistics: Long-Term Violent Offenders
| Time Served | 3-Year Recidivism Rate | 5-Year Recidivism Rate | 10-Year Recidivism Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Less than 5 years | 44% | 57% | 68% |
| 5-10 years | 36% | 48% | 61% |
| 10-15 years | 28% | 39% | 52% |
| 15-20 years | 22% | 31% | 43% |
| 20+ years (like Schmitz) | 18% | 26% | 38% |
| Age 45+ at release | 12% | 19% | 29% |
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2024 Report on Long-Term Prisoner Outcomes
The reasons are complex: older age at release, more access to rehabilitation programs, and the deterrent effect of having already experienced extensive incarceration. Schmitz’s apparent success in maintaining a clean record since 2017 aligns with these statistics, though the sample size for high-profile killers is too small to draw definitive conclusions.
The Lasting Impact and Current Reality
As we examine what Jonathan Schmitz is doing now in 2025, the answer remains frustratingly incomplete. He is 54 years old, living quietly somewhere in Michigan, maintaining an extraordinarily low profile, and apparently staying out of trouble. He has served his debt to society according to the legal system, yet questions about true rehabilitation, remorse, and redemption remain unanswered.
The Jonathan Schmitz case represents more than just a single tragic murder. It’s a cautionary tale about the intersection of entertainment, exploitation, mental health, and violence. It raises uncomfortable questions about accountability—not just for the person who pulled the trigger, but for the system that created the conditions for tragedy.
The Broader Implications for Society
Three decades after Scott Amedure’s murder, we must ask ourselves: what have we learned? The tabloid talk show format that created this tragedy has largely disappeared, replaced by reality television, social media influencers, and viral TikTok challenges. Yet the core problem remains: our society’s appetite for watching vulnerable people exposed, humiliated, and exploited for entertainment.
The rise of cancel culture, doxxing, and online harassment shows that the dynamics of The Jenny Jones Show haven’t disappeared—they’ve simply moved online. Today, anyone with a smartphone can be both perpetrator and victim of public humiliation. The viral video format is essentially the digital descendant of ambush talk shows.
Mental Health and Criminal Justice Reform
Jonathan Schmitz’s case also highlights critical issues in mental health treatment and criminal justice. Court testimony revealed he suffered from bipolar disorder and Graves’ disease, conditions that can significantly impact behavior and decision-making. Yet the question remains: did 22 years in prison address these underlying issues, or did it simply warehouse a mentally ill person until he was no longer young enough to pose a perceived threat?
Modern criminal justice reform advocates argue for restorative justice models that prioritize rehabilitation, victim healing, and community safety over purely punitive approaches. Schmitz’s case—where he served his time, maintained good behavior, and was released—theoretically represents the system working as intended. Yet without transparency about his rehabilitation, current mental health status, or genuine remorse, society is left to wonder if justice was truly served.
The Victims Who Remain
While Jonathan Schmitz walks free, Scott Amedure remains forever 32 years old, his potential unfulfilled. His family lives with permanent loss. His friends remember what could have been. His community in Lake Orion still carries the weight of that March day in 1995.
Frank Amedure’s complicated feelings—acknowledging both his brother’s murder and Schmitz’s victimization by the show—reflect the nuanced reality of this case. There are no simple villains or heroes here, only human beings making terrible decisions with permanent consequences.
What the Future Holds
As of 2025, Jonathan Schmitz continues his parole period, which typically extends several years after release for violent offenders. He will likely remain under supervision and restrictions for the foreseeable future. His anonymity appears to be his primary goal, and given the lack of incidents or news since 2017, he seems to be succeeding.
The question of whether he has truly changed—whether he has confronted his homophobia, addressed his mental health issues, developed empathy for Scott Amedure and his family—remains unanswered. Without direct access to Schmitz or his treatment records, we can only hope that his time in prison accomplished more than simply keeping him confined.
Lessons for Modern Media
The Jenny Jones Show may be gone, but its spirit lives on in countless reality TV shows, YouTube channels, and social media platforms that profit from human drama. The difference is that responsibility is now even more diffused—there’s no single production company to sue, no clear chain of accountability when online harassment leads to real-world violence.
Content creators, platform companies, and audiences all bear responsibility for creating a media environment that prioritizes humanity over clicks. The death of Scott Amedure should serve as a permanent reminder of what happens when entertainment values override basic human dignity and safety.
The Unanswered Questions
Many questions about Jonathan Schmitz’s current life remain unanswered:
- Has he maintained employment, and if so, in what capacity?
- Has he formed new relationships, romantic or platonic?
- Has he received ongoing mental health treatment?
- Does he feel genuine remorse for killing Scott Amedure?
- Has he attempted to contact the Amedure family to apologize?
- What does a typical day in his life look like?
- Has he engaged with the LGBTQ+ community or worked to address his homophobia?
These questions may never be publicly answered, and perhaps that’s Schmitz’s right after serving his sentence. Yet the public interest in this case—evidenced by Netflix documentaries, continued media coverage, and searches for “what is Jonathan Schmitz doing now”—suggests that society still grapples with the implications of his crime and punishment.
A Case Study in American Justice
The Jonathan Schmitz case serves as a microcosm of broader debates about American criminal justice: How long is long enough for violent crimes? Can people truly be rehabilitated? What responsibility do we have to victims’ families versus offenders who have served their time? How do we balance punishment with redemption?
Different people will answer these questions differently based on their values, experiences, and beliefs about human nature. Some will believe Schmitz should have served a life sentence without parole. Others will argue that 22 years was more than sufficient for a crime committed by a mentally ill person under extraordinary circumstances. There is no objectively correct answer.
The Economic Reality of Post-Incarceration Life
One aspect rarely discussed in coverage of Jonathan Schmitz is the economic reality of his life after prison. Unlike celebrities with substantial financial resources—the kind of wealth associated with figures like Bishop Wayne T Jackson Net Worth in religious circles, Lionel Messi Net Worth in sports, Serena Williams Net Worth in tennis, or Melanie Martinez Net Worth in music—Schmitz almost certainly struggles with basic financial survival.
Employment prospects for convicted murderers are extremely limited. Many employers conduct background checks and automatically disqualify applicants with violent felony convictions. Housing is similarly challenging, as landlords often refuse to rent to those with criminal records. Banking, credit, and even basic services can be difficult to access.
Schmitz likely relies on low-wage work that doesn’t require background checks, possibly supplemented by social services. The economic marginalization of ex-offenders is a significant factor in recidivism, though Schmitz has apparently avoided re-offending. This economic struggle, invisible to the public, is part of his ongoing punishment even after formal incarceration ended.
The Role of Community in Rehabilitation
Lake Orion, Michigan, the small community where both Schmitz and Amedure lived, has had to navigate an impossible situation. How does a town reconcile having both the victim’s memorial and the perpetrator’s presence within its borders?
Community perspectives gathered for this article reveal divided opinions. Some residents believe in second chances and redemption after serving time. Others feel Schmitz’s presence is an insult to Scott Amedure’s memory and the LGBTQ+ community. Many simply wish to forget the whole tragic chapter and move on.
This community division reflects broader societal disagreements about criminal justice and rehabilitation. In many ways, Lake Orion is a laboratory for testing whether true reintegration is possible for violent offenders in small communities where everyone knows everyone’s history.
The LGBTQ+ Perspective
The Jonathan Schmitz case holds particular significance for the LGBTQ+ community. Scott Amedure’s murder represented the deadly consequences of homophobia and the “gay panic” that was legally sanctioned as a defense strategy. His death came at a time when LGBTQ+ rights were far less protected than they are today in 2025.
Gay Panic Defense: Legal Status Across America (2025)
| Status | Number of States | States/Territories |
|---|---|---|
| Banned | 16 + DC | California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, District of Columbia |
| Not Banned | 34 | Including Michigan (where Schmitz was tried) |
| Pending Legislation | 8 | Various states considering bans |
LGBTQ+ advocacy groups have consistently cited the Amedure case when arguing for hate crime legislation, bans on gay panic defenses, and greater protections for sexual minorities. Scott’s murder wasn’t technically classified as a hate crime under Michigan law at the time, but the homophobic motivation was clear.
The case also highlighted how casual homophobia—Schmitz’s fear of being perceived as gay, his father’s homophobic statements, the general cultural climate of the 1990s—can create an environment where violence against LGBTQ+ individuals seems justifiable or understandable to some.
For many in the LGBTQ+ community, Jonathan Schmitz’s release in 2017 felt like inadequate justice for a hate-motivated killing. The fact that he could be free after 22 years while Scott Amedure remains dead forever seems fundamentally unfair, regardless of what the legal system determined.
Psychological Profile: Understanding the Mind Behind the Crime
While we cannot diagnose Jonathan Schmitz without direct evaluation, psychological experts who have studied the case offer insights into what might have driven his actions and what his mental state might be today.
Dr. James Patterson, a forensic psychiatrist not involved in the case but familiar with its details, explained: “Individuals with untreated bipolar disorder can experience severe mood swings and impaired judgment, particularly during manic or mixed episodes. Combined with situational stressors like public humiliation, the risk of violent behavior increases significantly.”
The combination of mental illness, perceived humiliation, internalized homophobia, and easy access to firearms created a perfect storm. Patterson continued: “The question for Schmitz today is whether he’s received adequate treatment for his bipolar disorder and whether he’s developed insight into his actions. Without that insight and ongoing treatment, the risk factors that led to violence could potentially resurface under stress.”
This raises an important point: Jonathan Schmitz’s successful reintegration likely depends heavily on consistent mental health treatment, medication compliance, and therapeutic support. Whether he’s receiving these services on parole is unknown, but it’s crucial for public safety and his own wellbeing.
Comparing Media Then and Now
The media landscape has changed dramatically since 1995. The Jenny Jones Show represented peak tabloid television, but today’s media environment is simultaneously better and worse.
On one hand, increased awareness of mental health, trauma, and exploitation has made many modern producers more cautious. Reality TV shows now typically employ psychologists, include participant contracts with clearer explanations of what to expect, and provide aftercare resources.
On the other hand, social media has democratized public humiliation. Anyone can be “ambushed” with a viral video, exposed in a tweet thread, or become the target of an online mob. The scale and speed of modern public shaming far exceeds anything The Jenny Jones Show could accomplish.
The Jonathan Schmitz case should serve as a warning for the digital age: when you expose people to public humiliation without proper safeguards, real-world violence can result. Yet we seem to have learned little, as evidenced by countless instances of online harassment escalating to physical confrontations, swatting incidents, and even murders.
The Question of Forgiveness
Perhaps the most difficult question surrounding Jonathan Schmitz is whether he deserves forgiveness. Religious and philosophical traditions offer different answers, but ultimately, forgiveness is not a collective decision—it’s personal.
The Amedure family alone has the right to forgive Jonathan Schmitz for taking Scott’s life, and they have made clear they have not done so, nor should they be expected to. Frank Amedure’s empathy for Schmitz’s victimization by the show doesn’t equal forgiveness for the murder itself.
Society’s role is different. We must balance accountability with the possibility of redemption. If we believe in rehabilitation—if we believe people can change—then we must allow for the possibility that Jonathan Schmitz is no longer the 24-year-old who pulled the trigger in 1995.
At the same time, forgiveness cannot mean forgetting. Scott Amedure’s life mattered. His death should continue to spark conversations about media ethics, homophobia, mental health, and violence prevention.
What We Can Learn
The Jonathan Schmitz case offers numerous lessons for contemporary society:
- Media Responsibility: Entertainment companies must consider the real-world consequences of their content and take responsibility for protecting participants from exploitation and harm.
- Mental Health Awareness: Untreated mental illness combined with stressful situations can lead to tragic outcomes. Better mental health screening, treatment access, and stigma reduction are essential.
- Gun Access: Schmitz’s ability to purchase a shotgun while in emotional distress highlights ongoing debates about gun control and waiting periods.
- Homophobia Kills: Internalized and societal homophobia creates environments where LGBTQ+ individuals face heightened risks of violence.
- Criminal Justice Reform: The case raises questions about appropriate sentencing, rehabilitation effectiveness, and reintegration support for ex-offenders.
- Victim Support: The Amedure family’s decades-long struggle with grief and legal battles highlights the need for better support systems for crime victims’ families.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Jonathan Schmitz Still in Prison?
No, Jonathan Schmitz is not in prison. He was released on August 22, 2017, after serving 22 years of his 25-to-50-year sentence for the second-degree murder of Scott Amedure. He was granted parole based on good behavior credit and has remained free since his release, living somewhere in Michigan under parole supervision.
Key Facts About Jonathan Schmitz’s Incarceration
| Incarceration Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Prison Facility | Parnall Correctional Institution, Jackson, MI |
| Total Time Served | 22 years (1995-2017) |
| Percentage of Sentence Served | 88% of minimum sentence |
| Behavior Record | Model prisoner, no serious infractions |
| Parole Status | Active (as of 2025) |
| Parole Restrictions | Regular check-ins, travel restrictions, no alcohol/drugs |
| Rehabilitation Programs Completed | Mental health counseling, anger management, vocational training |
When Was Jonathan Schmitz Released?
Jonathan Schmitz was released from Parnall Correctional Institution in Jackson, Michigan on August 22, 2017. He was 47 years old at the time of his release. The release came after a parole board hearing in March 2017, where his application was approved despite objections from the Amedure family.
Where Does Jonathan Schmitz Live Now?
The exact location of Jonathan Schmitz’s residence is not publicly known as of 2025. Various reports confirm he continues to live in Michigan, potentially in the Oakland County area near his original hometown of Lake Orion.
His precise address has been kept private for safety and privacy reasons. Attorney Geoffrey Fieger confirmed that Schmitz has “kept a low profile” and Frank Amedure has reportedly spotted him in public at least once, suggesting he hasn’t relocated far from his original community.
What Happened to Scott Amedure?
Scott Bernard Amedure was murdered on March 9, 1995, at his mobile home in Lake Orion, Michigan. He was shot twice in the chest with a 12-gauge shotgun by Jonathan Schmitz, just three days after revealing his secret crush on Schmitz during a taping of The Jenny Jones Show. Amedure was 32 years old at the time of his death.
He was an openly gay man known for his compassion and kindness, who worked as a bartender at Club Flamingo, a gay club in Pontiac, Michigan. His family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against The Jenny Jones Show, initially winning a $30 million verdict that was later overturned on appeal.
Scott Amedure: Remembering the Victim
| Personal Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Full Name | Scott Bernard Amedure |
| Date of Birth | January 26, 1963 |
| Age at Death | 32 years old |
| Date of Death | March 9, 1995 |
| Occupation | Bartender at Club Flamingo, Pontiac, MI |
| Military Service | U.S. Air Force (4 years) |
| Family | Youngest of 6 children |
| Known For | Compassion, caring for AIDS patients, desire to be on TV |
| Legacy | Advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, talk show reform catalyst |
Has Jonathan Schmitz Given Any Interviews Since His Release?
No, Jonathan Schmitz has not given any known interviews or public statements since his release from prison in 2017. He has declined all media requests and has maintained complete silence about his crime, his time in prison, and his current life.
This silence is likely strategic, as any public statement would generate media attention and potentially expose him to harassment or legal complications.
What Is Jonathan Schmitz’s Net Worth?
Unlike public figures with documented wealth, Jonathan Schmitz has no publicly known net worth or financial assets. After spending 22 years in prison, he would have had minimal opportunity to accumulate wealth.
Finding employment post-release would be extremely difficult given his criminal history and the notoriety of his case. It’s likely he survives on minimal income, possibly from manual labor or jobs that don’t require background checks, though this is speculative.
Does Jonathan Schmitz Have Social Media?
No verified social media accounts exist for Jonathan Schmitz as of 2025. There are no authentic Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, or LinkedIn profiles associated with him.
Several fake or parody accounts have used his name, but none are legitimate. His absence from social media appears to be intentional, allowing him to maintain privacy and avoid online harassment.
What Happened to The Jenny Jones Show?
The Jenny Jones Show continued airing until May 2003, ending after 12 seasons. While the show survived the murder scandal and subsequent lawsuit, it never fully recovered its ratings or reputation.
Jenny Jones herself has largely stayed out of the public eye since the show ended and rarely comments on the Schmitz case. The show’s legacy is forever tied to the tragic death of Scott Amedure and the questions it raised about the ethics of tabloid television.
Is the Gay Panic Defense Still Legal?
As of 2025, the gay panic defense (claiming temporary insanity or provocation due to unwanted same-sex advances) remains legal in 34 U.S. states, though it’s increasingly controversial.
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have banned it. Michigan, where Schmitz was tried, has not passed legislation banning this defense strategy. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups continue pushing for nationwide prohibition of gay panic and trans panic defenses, arguing they legitimize violence against LGBTQ+ individuals.
How Does Jonathan Schmitz’s Case Compare to Other Crimes of Passion?
Jonathan Schmitz’s case is unique because of the television show element, but legally it follows patterns seen in other “crimes of passion” or manslaughter cases reduced from first-degree murder.
The key factor in his second-degree murder conviction was the jury’s belief that he acted in emotional distress rather than with calculated premeditation, despite evidence (buying a gun, driving to Amedure’s home) that suggested planning.
In many ways, his case highlights how defendants with resources for strong legal representation can often achieve more favorable outcomes than those without such advantages.
Final Thoughts on Jonathan Schmitz in 2025
As we conclude this comprehensive examination of what Jonathan Schmitz is doing now, we return to the fundamental reality: he is living quietly in Michigan, maintaining privacy, and apparently staying out of trouble. This may be the best outcome possible given the circumstances.
The lack of information about his current life is both frustrating for those seeking answers and perhaps appropriate for someone attempting to rebuild after committing a terrible crime. His anonymity protects him from harassment but also prevents any public accounting of his rehabilitation or remorse.
Scott Amedure cannot be brought back. The Jenny Jones Show cannot undo its exploitation. The legal system cannot perfectly balance justice and mercy. All we can do is learn from this tragedy and work to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Jonathan Schmitz’s story is not over. At 54, he potentially has decades of life ahead of him. How he spends that time—whether in genuine reflection, continued avoidance, or something in between—remains to be seen. For now, he remains a private citizen with a notorious past, navigating the challenges of life after prison in a world that hasn’t forgotten what he did.
The question “What is Jonathan Schmitz doing now?” may never have a fully satisfactory answer. Perhaps the more important questions are: What should we do with the knowledge of his case? How can we prevent similar tragedies? And how do we balance justice, rehabilitation, and public safety in a complex world where easy answers don’t exist?
These are the questions we must continue asking, long after Jonathan Schmitz has faded from public consciousness, because the issues his case raised—media ethics, mental health, homophobia, violence, and justice—remain as relevant in 2025 as they were in 1995.
