New details were released in a recent court filing by a Bardstown man, Brooks Houck, who is accused of killing his former girlfriend, Crystal Rogers.
In the most recent motion filed by Brooks Houck and his defense attorney Brian Butler, transcripts of interviews with other defendants unearthed details that Houck wanted Rogers “gone,” and midnight phone calls between the men were about getting “the job done.”
Rogers, a 35-year-old mother from Bardstown, went missing in July 2015. Her body has never been found.
Late last year, Houck, Rogers’ former boyfriend, was indicted on charges of murder and evidence tampering, while Stephen and Joseph Lawson, a father and son, were indicted on charges of criminal conspiracy to commit murder and complicity to tampering with physical evidence. All three have pleaded not guilty.
More than a year out from their trial, the three are filing pretrial motions — the newest to dispute prosecutor Shane Young’s idea to consolidate the three cases.
Houck’s attorneys argued in a 40-page motion filed Monday that “Brooks cannot possibly receive a fair trial if tried jointly with the Lawsons.”
Within those pages are previously unreleased statements from Steve Lawson’s testimony to investigators.
Houck ‘wanted her gone,’ transcripts reveal
Houck’s motion features transcribed interviews between Steve Lawson and investigators, which allege Houck asked him to “point him in the direction,” of someone who could “kill Crystal Rogers.”
According to the transcripts, Stephen Lawson told the Nelson County grand jury that indicted Houck that he solicited him for murder and “wanted his wife gone.”
Lawson claimed Houck spoke about his and Rogers’ strained relationship and made an arm motion which indicated he wanted her dead.
Midnight phone call about getting ‘the job done’
Transcripts also show that Stephen Lawson spoke with investigators about a midnight phone call on July, 4, 2015. He told detectives the call was to tell Houck, “the job was done.”
The documents imply the job involved moving Rogers’ car, which was found later on the Bluegrass Parkway with her phone, keys and wallet inside. The motion said it was likely the potential jury would hear testimony that showed Stephen Lawson heading east in the direction to where Lawson’s car was found.
In interrogations with Houck that have been made public, Houck can be heard saying he didn’t recall who the phone call was from or what it pertained to. However, once Houck dials the number in front of detectives, Stephen Lawson answers and tells Houck the midnight phone call was about rental property.
Houck’s attorneys were quick to point out the testimony from Stephen Lawson had changed after investigators interrogated him intensely.
Houck’s attorneys said in the filing that the Lawsons were promised immunity.
“The Government promised immunity to S. Lawson and J. Lawson and used the carrot of immunity to coerce these statements. Yet, the Government reneged on its promise of immunity and indicted and jailed S. Lawson and J. Lawson,” the document filed Monday states.
“Brooks cannot mount a meaningful defense in a joint trial where he is prohibited from exposing how the Lawsons’ incriminating statements were coerced by investigators dangling a promise of immunity,” the motion states.
If Houck and the Lawsons were tried together, Houck’s attorneys argue that the Lawsons would be the “two primary witnesses against Brooks.”
Though they likely would not testify, their prior statements, grand jury testimony and calls made from the jail could be used as evidence.
“None of these statements would technically be admissible against Brooks because, assuming neither S. Lawson nor J. Lawson testify, he would not have the opportunity to cross-examine either of them in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. However, jurors would hear the statements, and even if they are properly redacted, certainly use them against Brooks. As the Government knows and stated, it would be ‘impossible’ for a jury to follow any cautionary instruction,” Houck’s attorneys wrote.
The attorneys for Houck argue that the cases should be kept separate to avoid violating his constitutional rights.
“In the alternative, if the Court is inclined to grant the Government’s motion to consolidate despite the aforementioned issues, Brooks would have no choice but to agree to waive his constitutional right to confront S. Lawson and J. Lawson and agree to the admission of all of their statements in a separate trial in order to attempt to preserve some semblance of his constitutional right to Due Process by allowing him to expose S. Lawson’s and J. Lawson’s lies by cross-examining law enforcement about all of their statements,” the motion says.
Herald-Leader reporter Karla Ward contributed to this story.
‘Incessant’ media coverage of Crystal Rogers, Brooks Houck leads to change of venue request
Trial date for Brooks Houck, other suspects set in the case of Crystal Rogers’ death
Who’s involved in the Crystal Rogers case? 12 people to know and how they’re connected
