Crystal Rogers trial: Brooks Houck’s lawyers claim ‘tunnel vision’ to blame for charges
In closing arguments Monday, lawyers for Brooks Houck claimed he was charged in the high-profile disappearance and presumed death of Bardstown woman Crystal Rogers because of an “overriding directive” from politicians despite little evidence.
Defense attorney Brian Butler told the jury Monday, the final day of a nearly two-week trial, that the state ordered investigators to “get Brooks Houck.”
Investigators ignored other leads and suspects in Rogers’ 2015 disappearance, Butler said, because of “tunnel vision” and “marching orders” amid pressure to solve the case.
Houck, charged with complicity to commit murder and evidence tampering, is facing a joint trial alongside, Joseph Lawson, 34, charged with conspiracy to commit murder and evidence tampering. Their trial began June 24.
A third suspect, Steven Lawson, 51, the father of Joseph Lawson, was convicted in a previous trial for conspiracy to commit murder and evidence tampering.
Rogers was last seen alive July 3, 2015. Her body has never been found.
Prosecutors argued in their closing arguments Monday that Houck’s inconsistent statements throughout the investigation, as well as contradictory, circumstantial evidence, prove he was involved in Rogers’ disappearance.
Closing statements consumed the ninth day of trial Monday. Jurors will begin deliberations Tuesday morning at the Warren County Judicial Center in Bowling Green.
Butler argued there were flaws in prosecutors’ case against Houck. Rather than hard evidence and facts, he said, the state’s case relied on jurors to consider “what was possible.”
“How many guesses do you get?” Butler asked. “How much speculation do you get? In a criminal trial, the answer is none.”
Over a decade, investigators expended a vast array of resources, involving many law enforcement agencies, but ultimately yielded no physical evidence, Butler told the jury.
Houck has been the primary suspect since Rogers went missing. Prosecutors have argued several members of the Houck family were involved in the disappearance, though no other family members have been charged.
Defense: Lawson ‘collateral damage’ in investigation
Houck’s co-defendant, Joseph Lawson, was mentioned much less than Houck during the two-week trial.
Lawson, who prosecutors allege helped move Rogers’ body and potentially her car, was employed by Houck in 2015.
Lawson’s lawyer, Robert Boyd, argued during Monday’s closings that his client is “100% innocent.”
Boyd, too, focused on what he called the state’s “vivacious” tunnel vision to convict Houck, even if it meant convicting an innocent man alongside him.
“At any cost — facts be damned — get a conviction,” Boyd told jurors.
Boyd said investigators had right and just intentions, but alleged they “bullied, coerced and manipulated the witnesses” to produce results.
Boyd argued the state’s witnesses were people “on the fringes of society,” who had a lot to lose due to previous drug use and criminal history.
Boyd also noted how little his client came up during the trial.
“You’ve probably forgotten we were on trial the past two weeks,” Boyd said.
Prosecutor: ‘He is guilty of murder’
Early in the trial, special prosecutor Shane Young laid out a timeline for what the state believes happened to Rogers on July 3, 2015.
He recalled witness testimony from women who said Rogers told them she was going on a surprise date night with Houck and would be child-free. But the couple ended up on the Houck family farm with their 2-year-old for four hours in the rain, Houck told police.
“The surprise date night was her surprise ending,” Young said.
Young highlighted for jurors Houck’s statements to police, including an eight-page written statement about his whereabouts the day and night Rogers went missing.
Houck told investigators he had run several errands during the morning and afternoon of July 3, but cellphone location data contradicted his claims. Instead, the data placed him on his family’s farm on Paschal Ballard Lane for several hours before he told investigators he and Rogers visited the farm later that night.
Most problematic, Young argued, were Houck’s claims that Rogers returned home the evening of July 3 and played games on her phone until after midnight.
Cellphone evidence presented at trial showed Rogers’ phone died around 9:23 p.m. and was briefly turned on again at 11:57 before being manually shut off.
“If she left with him and never came home, he is guilty of murder,” Young said. “Am I saying he killed her? No. I don’t know who did.”
Young also questioned Houck’s lack of concern for Rogers in the days after her disappearance, including failing to report her missing and not responding to her family’s questions about where she was.
“He’s done absolutely nothing to help find this woman,” Young said. “Why? Because he knows there is no sense in it, because she is not coming home.”
This story was originally published July 8, 2025 at 8:47 AM.
