‘Unduly prejudiced.’ Brooks Houck argues for separate trials in Crystal Rogers case

Days after issuing a ruling that keeps charges against a man charged in the murder of Bardstown mother Crystal Rogers, attorneys for Brooks Houck, her former boyfriend, are trying to keep the same co-defendant from testifying against him.

Rogers, a 35-year-old mother from Bardstown, went missing in July 2015. Her body has never been found, but Rogers is presumed dead.

Houck, Rogers’ former boyfriend, was indicted late last year 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 to dispute prosecutor Shane Young’s idea to consolidate the three cases. Currently, their cases and charges remain separate from one another.

On Monday, Nelson County Circuit Judge Charles Simms III heard from Brian Butler, Houck’s attorney, arguing against a joint trial.

Butler argues if the court were to try the three defendants together, it would be prejudicial to Houck, who would not be legally able to cross-examine either Lawson if they spoke as witnesses, violating his constitutional rights.

If all the defendants were to receive separate trials, Houck would be able to confront the other two men in their testimony. Butler said the circumstance of a joint trial would be “unduly prejudiced” against Houck.

If there was any case that should be separate, Butler said, “it would be this one.”

“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,” Houck’s attorneys wrote in a motion. “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.”

Butler repeatedly said it would be “impossible,” and there was “no way,” to sanitize Steve Lawson’s 20-hours of police interviews and jail phone calls without incriminating Houck.

Even if they were willing to try and “sanitize” the statements against Houck, Butler said a jury would not be able to decipher easily what testimony was or was not admissible.

“I don’t think you could get 12 lawyers to decide what they can and cannot use of value, based off the testimony,” Butler said. “...If we have a joint trial, everyone is going to be back here in two years.”

Houck’s attorney said Steve Lawson and his testimony and previous police interviews were the pieces which “connected the dots” to Houck’s alleged involvement in Roger’s disappearance.

Steve Lawson’s grand jury testimony — if admitted as evidence — could show:

• Steve and Joseph Lawson were with Houck on a drywall job when Houck asked them to move Rogers’ car.
• Houck told Steve Lawson while they were talking in his work truck that (Houck) “wanted Crystal gone.”
• Alleged movements of Steve and Joseph Lawson on the night of July 3, 2015.
• The purpose of the 12:07 a.m. phone call was for Steve Lawson to tell Houck that Rogers’ car had been moved.
• Brooks told Steve Lawson to say that the phone call was about rental property.
• Houck promised Steve Lawson all future drywall jobs in exchange for moving the car.

Steve Lawson’s attorney, Ted Lavit, asked for charges to be dismissed against his client, claiming he was promised immunity by prosecutors in exchange for his testimony. Simms wrote in a ruling issued July 3 that while there was a valid immunity agreement, it was null and void considering Lawson had lied to prosecutors.

Simms wrote Lawson was untruthful “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and gave statements that were “wildly inconsistent.”

“What this trial becomes if we do it together, it becomes about hours and hours of us questioning Steve Lawson and his inconsistent statements,” Butler said. “It becomes hours and hours of discussing promises that led him to change his statements. It becomes hours and hours and hours of us pointing out statements like ‘is that helping you,’ ‘is that what you want to hear,’ ‘I want to be on your team.’”

Prosecutor Teresa Young said the defense’s argument was “clear as mud.” She said the prosecution had no intention of using any testimonial evidence from either Lawson in the case, therefore his point was moot.

The judge is expected to make a ruling in the coming days.