20 hours ago, Jumper_Dad said:

I'm not doubting you. Just doesn't make sense to me since state prisons as whole are already over crowded and that's why so many convicted state prisoners are housed in county jails across the state. I know, as we see in this case, that it happens...just doesn't pass the smell test in this case that it's just for over crowding. 

I hear ya. I guess if someone really wanted to, they could take a look at Hardin County's jail inmates that are currently housed there.  Look to see how many inmates are there under the status of FEDERAL PRISONER HELD-IN TRANSIT/COURT/SERVEOUT.  I would also take a look at how long they've been there.  I've seen people sit in local county jails in NKY for a few months before getting transferred elsewhere.  It may also have something to do with their future court dates.  

 

 

On 12/20/2023 at 10:50 AM, Jumper_Dad said:

Federal prisoners are kept in local jails while awaiting trial all across Kentucky every day. I'm sure it's happened before, but I've never seen or heard of a prisoner being moved to a state prison prior to a conviction, like this.

They did it with Eva Crowder on Justified....

I saw fairly recently that Crystal Rogers' mother Sherry Ballard has filed a wrongful death suit against Brooks Houck in addition to all of the criminal charges against Houck at this point.

https://www.wlky.com/article/crystal-rogers-search-fbi-nelson-county-day-3/61611129

 

NELSON COUNTY, Ky. —

Investigators said Thursday is the last day they'll dig and search at a rural property in Nelson County.

The FBI, Nelson County Sheriff's Office and other agencies have been out at a home on Whitesides Road since Tuesday with excavators and other equipment, looking for the body of Crystal Rogers.

Hopefully this leads to some answers. This tip could have came from one of the others under indictment in this case, trying to cut a better deal for themselves.

 

They are never going to find her, which is kind of wild.

Trial will be moved to Warren County due to local publicity.

Our Judge here considered Christian County as a venue, but the logistics of the courthouse there just were not what he felt was necessary for a trial of this likely attendance.  Warren County is an interesting venue, with several TV stations.

From a legal standpoint the more interesting question is whether or not Judge Simms will continue joinder of the cases with the co-Defendants.

16 minutes ago, Hearsay said:

Our Judge here considered Christian County as a venue, but the logistics of the courthouse there just were not what he felt was necessary for a trial of this likely attendance.  Warren County is an interesting venue, with several TV stations.

From a legal standpoint the more interesting question is whether or not Judge Simms will continue joinder of the cases with the co-Defendants.

My understanding is that joinder of the case is definitely the more desirable option for the prosecution because that way they don't have to have any scenarios where the same witness testifies three separate times in three separate trials. If there was any variation in testimony from trial to trial from a witness (even with this being about a decade after the fact), then the defense could move to have that witness' testimony thrown out.

53 minutes ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

My understanding is that joinder of the case is definitely the more desirable option for the prosecution because that way they don't have to have any scenarios where the same witness testifies three separate times in three separate trials. If there was any variation in testimony from trial to trial from a witness (even with this being about a decade after the fact), then the defense could move to have that witness' testimony thrown out.

Possibly, but the flip side is that if one of the co-Defendants has made a prior statement against another co-Defendant, and the case is consolidated and that co-Defendant does not testify (which he does not have to do), then the inculpatory statement cannot be used at trial.  Definitely a double-edged sword.  Black letter law.  Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).  So, if one of the Lawson's made a statement implicating Houck, the co-Defendanrts were all tried together, and the Lawson did not testify, his statement against Houck cannot be used at trial.

@Hearsay isn't one advantage of keeping them together is that it is harder for Houck to try to put all the blame on the Lawson's and vice versa? 

It seems like I heard about a case in the past that was split up. In each trial the defense basically said "my client didn't do it, but there are two others on trial for this same murder that did" which sews doubt in the minds of the jury.

Is there a podcast on this case? I'd like to learn more about it. Resources?

8 hours ago, BrosefStalin said:

Is there a podcast on this case? I'd like to learn more about it. Resources?

On Spotify or other pod providers just search "Bardstown Murders", there are several.

On 10/11/2024 at 2:37 PM, Hearsay said:

From a legal standpoint the more interesting question is whether or not Judge Simms will continue joinder of the cases with the co-Defendants.

On 10/11/2024 at 2:59 PM, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

My understanding is that joinder of the case is definitely the more desirable option for the prosecution because that way they don't have to have any scenarios where the same witness testifies three separate times in three separate trials. If there was any variation in testimony from trial to trial from a witness (even with this being about a decade after the fact), then the defense could move to have that witness' testimony thrown out.

On 10/11/2024 at 3:57 PM, Hearsay said:

Possibly, but the flip side is that if one of the co-Defendants has made a prior statement against another co-Defendant, and the case is consolidated and that co-Defendant does not testify (which he does not have to do), then the inculpatory statement cannot be used at trial.  Definitely a double-edged sword.  Black letter law.  Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).  So, if one of the Lawsons made a statement implicating Houck, the co-Defendants were all tried together, and the Lawson did not testify, his statement against Houck cannot be used at trial.

On 10/12/2024 at 9:05 AM, Jumper_Dad said:

@Hearsay isn't one advantage of keeping them together is that it is harder for Houck to try to put all the blame on the Lawson's and vice versa? 

It seems like I heard about a case in the past that was split up. In each trial the defense basically said "my client didn't do it, but there are two others on trial for this same murder that did" which sews doubt in the minds of the jury.

Judge Simms denied the request to try all three co-Defendant's together back in November. Brooks Houck and Joseph Lawson will be tried together, and Steven Lawson (father of Joseph Lawson) will be tried separately.

Apparently the judge's ruling was based largely on the fact that Steven Lawson has given an exorbitant amount of contradictory testimony about what happened to Crystal Rogers.

Steven Lawson's son Joseph Lawson was arrested in September 2023 and is being charged as a co-conspirator with Houck for agreeing to help plan/conduct, or help solicit someone to conduct the murder of Crystal Rogers. Then Steven Lawson was arrested in December 2023 and charged with the same thing as his son Joseph.

Steven Lawson's attorney has stated that the prosecutor's allegations are that Brooks Houck asked Joseph Lawson to drive Crystal Rogers' car to an undisclosed location. While Joseph Lawson was driving Crystal Rogers' car, the car got a flat tire on the Bluegrass Parkway, so Joseph called his father Steven and asked for a ride home and then left the car abandoned on the Bluegrass Parkway after being picked up by Steven. The attorney claims that his client, Steven Lawson, did not do anything to hurt or prepare to hurt Crystal, but acknowleged that Brooks Houck had conversations with Steven Lawson about Crystal.

Steven Lawson has also stated that he was promised immunity by the KSP, FBI and special prosecutor for his cooperation, but they have now gone back on that promise. The prosecution evidently has taken the position that they had once offered immunity for immediate cooperation, but with Steven Lawson's hesitance to be forthcoming with details their offer was rendered null and void, and that Steven Lawson's cooperation came too late for him to attain the immunity they had previously offered.

Judge rules Brooks Houck and one co-defendant will be tried separately for Crystal Rogers' murder | WDRB

Steve Lawson trial started today in Bowling Green, expected to last until Friday or Monday. I think he will get convicted of tampering with evidence, but doubt he gets convicted of the more serious charges.

Steve Lawson just found guilty. Lawson has been found guilty of both charges, conspiracy to commit murder and tampering with evidence.

>>Update<< Jury recommends 17 years in Prison.

This may push his son and Brooks Houck to look at a plea deal.