Openings in Crystal Rogers murder trial give glimpse into evidence to come
The conversation did not include Brooks Houck, Rogers' boyfriend at the time of the disappearance, who is charged with murder and tampering with physical evidence in the trial. It was his mother, Rosemary Houck, who approached Danny Singleton, a man worked for Houck, about killing Rogers, prosecutor Jim Lesousky said.
In his response to the proposition, Singleton said something to the effect of, 'If you got enough money, you can get anything done,' Lesousky said.
"That was the beginning of the conspiracy to kill Crystal," Lesousky said.
Steve Schroering, a defense attorney for Houck, told a different story.
During opening arguments for his client, Schroering foreshadowed possible testimony from Singleton himself, noting he had pending felony charges that were amended to misdemeanors after he alleged the conversation occurred.
Schroering said that's just one example of how prosecutors have built a case on 'assumptions, theories and guesses' aided by 'coercion, manipulation and bullying' amid mounting pressure for investigators to find answers to the decade-old case.
Attorneys for Joseph Lawson, who is charged with conspiracy to commit murder and tampering with physical evidence in the trial, reserved their openings, meaning they will likely come after the prosecution rests its case. Lawson's father, Steven Lawson, was convicted for his role in the alleged murder in late May.
Following a full day of jury selection June 24, the second day of the high-profile trial kicked off with openings from the prosecution.
During his statements, Lesousky noted a lack of physical evidence in the case, something Houck's defense attempted to exploit in their openings.
Rogers went missing the night of July 3, 2015, but her body has never been found. Her car was found a few days later abandoned on Bluegrass Parkway with her keys, phone and purse inside. Investigators presume she is dead.
Because of the lack of physical evidence, Lesousky asked jurors to instead use their 'God-given common sense' to understand the accusations.
On the afternoon of July 3, Houck told Rogers they would enjoy a 'kids-free, romantic evening,' Lesousky said. The couple, who shared one child, was enduring a rough patch at the time, so Rogers was looking forward to the outing.
But the couple ended up going to the Houck-family farm accompanied by their son, arriving around 7:30 p.m. and leaving around midnight. Houck later told investigators that it was Rogers' idea to spend the evening on the farm, which is where she was last seen.
Around 12:07 p.m. July 4, Steven Lawson called Houck for about 13 seconds.
Steven Lawson's explanation for why he called Houck has evolved over the course of the investigation, though he testified at his trial that the call was to inform Houck that the job of moving Rogers' car was done. Houck, who owns several rental properties in Nelson County, has claimed that Steven asked about properties during the brief phone call.
Houck told investigators that Rogers was using her phone on the couch when the couple returned home from the farm around 12:30 a.m. that night, Lesousky said. But data that will be presented as evidence will show Rogers' phone was not used after 9:27 p.m. the previous day, he said.
Schroering countered during his opening arguments that interview recordings will reveal Houck said that's what Rogers would normally do at that hour, not necessarily what she did that very night.
While Joseph Lawson's attorneys declined to give opening arguments for now, Schroering declared both men innocent.
His remarks focused heavily on dispelling 'suspicions' that the prosecution raised.
For example, Lesousky said Houck installed dark tints on his truck windows days before Rogers disappeared, likely to block people from seeing what occurred inside the truck. Schroering said the tint job was simply to accommodate his young son's medical condition that made his eyes sensitive to sunlight.
'If you look at it through a sinister view, then you come to a sinister conclusion,' Schroering said.
Schroering went on to purport flaws in the prosecution's evidence that Steven Lawson drove to pick up his son, Joseph, from where Rogers' car broke down on Bluegrass Parkway.
Data from Steven's phone, which is slated to be shown as evidence, will show the likelihood that he was actually on Boston Road, a corridor north of the parkway that runs parallel to it, Schroering said.
In 2014, Schroering said, Steven jointly financed a car through Capital One with an ex-girlfriend, whom he dated while on a break with his wife at the time, Tammy Lawson. The couple broke up, and Steven got back with his wife.
The two disputed over who would own the car after the breakup, and both maintained keys to the car.
The night Rogers disappeared, Steven's ex-girlfriend was picked up from work early because she felt sick. While driving past a bar in Bardstown, she noticed the car she shared with Steven parked in the lot and asked to be dropped off. She drove the car back to a residence on Boston Road to hide it, Schroering said.
The car was 'stolen back' within 24 hours, Schroering said.
Steven's phone data from that night shows he called Capital One and visited its website, and he texted his wife in the early morning hours of July 4 about the car.
Despite thousands of hours of investigating, dozens of searches around Nelson County and countless tips, the 'scientific evidence' in the case remains the most certain, Schroering said.
'Where the case stands today is that there is no sign of Crystal Rogers' body,' he said.
Contact reporter Killian Baarlaer at kbaarlaer@gannett.com or @bkillian72 on X.
This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Crystal Rogers trial openings done for Brooks Houck
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Will the Menendez brothers be released from prison? What to know about this week's parole hearings.
A California parole board will decide whether to grant the release of Erik and Lyle Menendez, who have been in prison for more than 30 years for the brutal 1989 murders of their parents. Parole hearings are scheduled later this week in the cases of Erik and Lyle Menendez, two brothers who have spent more than 30 years in prison for the brutal 1989 murders of their parents. The hearings could result in their release. The Menendez brothers were sentenced in 1996 to life in prison without parole. But earlier this year, a California judge reduced their prison sentences to 50 years to life, making them eligible for parole. "For more than 35 years, they have shown sustained growth. They've taken full accountability," their families said in a joint statement on Wednesday. "They express sincere remorse to our family to this day and have built a meaningful life defined by purpose and service." When are the hearings? Erik Menendez's parole suitability hearing is scheduled for Thursday at 11:30 a.m. ET/8:30 a.m. PT; Lyle Menendez's parole suitability hearing is set for Friday, also at 11:30 a.m. ET/8:30 a.m. PT. They will each appear via videoconference from the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, where they are being held. The hearings will be conducted by a panel of two or three board members, who will assess whether the brothers pose an 'unreasonable risk of danger to society' if released, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The panel will consider factors like criminal history, behavior in prison and statements from the brothers, family members, the district attorney's office and the public. Hearings typically take two to three hours to complete. They will not be televised, and no audio or video recordings are permitted. An assigned pool reporter will be allowed to observe the hearings and distribute updates during specified breaks. The murders and the trials Erik and Lyle Menendez killed their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, with shotguns at their Beverly Hills mansion on Aug. 20, 1989. They initially denied the killings, telling police they suspected the slayings were related to Jose Menendez's work as an entertainment executive. They were arrested in March 1990. At trial three years later, the brothers testified they killed their parents in self-defense after years of sexual abuse by their father, about which they said their mother was aware. Prosecutors argued that their motive for the killings was a multimillion-dollar inheritance. They were tried twice. A mistrial was declared in 1994 due to a hung jury. In 1996, Erik and Lyle were convicted on first-degree murder charges and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Many details of the alleged sexual abuse they experienced were not permitted during the retrial. In 1998, a California appeals court upheld their convictions. Subsequent appeals to the higher courts were also denied. The Netflix series and a fight for freedom The case was thrust back into the public eye last year thanks to the hit Netflix drama series Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story. Last fall, then-Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón recommended that the brothers be resentenced, saying, 'I believe they have paid their debt to society." Gascón said he thought that Erik and Lyle, who are now 54 and 57 years old, respectively, had rehabilitated themselves while incarcerated, earning advanced degrees, participating in self-help classes and creating various support groups for their fellow inmates. Gascón also said his office was reviewing new evidence that their attorneys said corroborated the allegations of sexual abuse. He recommended that their sentence be reduced from life without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life, making them immediately eligible for parole under California law because they were younger than 26 when they committed the killings. (Erik was 18; Lyle was 21.) But Gascón's successor, Nathan Hochman, opposed resentencing, saying that the brothers had failed to take 'complete responsibility' for the double murder, including their initial claim that they did not kill their parents. "These murders were calculated, premeditated, cold-blooded killings," Hochman said in a statement on April 11. "Our position remains clear: Until the Menendez brothers finally come clean with all their lies of self-defense and suborning and attempting to suborn perjury, they are not rehabilitated and pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety." In May, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic reduced their sentences to 50 years to life after a resentencing hearing, which included testimony from relatives, a retired judge, a former fellow inmate and the brothers themselves. "I committed an atrocious act," Erik Menendez told Jesic. "I have no excuse, no justification for what I did." "I killed my mom and dad," Lyle Menendez told the judge. "I give no excuses. I take full responsibility.' What's next? After the parole hearings, the board will issue a written decision recommending whether or not they should be granted parole. If the board recommends parole be granted, the decision is subject to review by the board's legal division and California Gov. Gavin Newsom before becoming final. The board's chief legal counsel has up to 120 days to review the decision, according to the parole board. If approved by the counsel, the decision will be turned over to Newsom, who has an additional 30 days to decide whether to accept, reject or modify it. If Newsom accepts the board's decision to grant parole, they'd be eligible for release immediately. However, if the board denies them parole, the brothers would have to wait at least three years for the panel to reconsider their case. Earlier this year, Newsom ordered a risk assessment investigation for the parole board to determine whether the brothers pose a public safety threat if released. 'There's no guarantee of outcome here," Newsom said on his podcast in February. "My office conducts dozens and dozens of these clemency reviews on a consistent basis, but this process simply provides more transparency, which I think is important in this case.'
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NYC Mayor Eric Adams' former chief adviser to face more charges: Lawyer
Ingrid Lewis-Martin, New York City Mayor Eric Adams' former chief adviser who remains a volunteer on his reelection campaign, will appear in court Thursday to face additional charges, her lawyer said. The lawyer, Arthur Aidala, said the Manhattan District Attorney's Office declined to provide details about the new charges. "Despite a lifetime of service as a law-abiding public servant, Ingrid is being forced to enter court with little information. What she does know is this: she has always served the City with integrity, and she will firmly plead not guilty to every charge," Aidala said in a statement. "While the specifics remain unclear, Ingrid is certain of one thing -- she has broken no laws, and she is not guilty. We will be requesting an expedited trial schedule." Adams, who is trying to revive a lagging reelection campaign, is not expected to be charged with any wrongdoing and a spokesperson said the new charges against Lewis-Martin have nothing to do with him. This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.


CBS News
7 minutes ago
- CBS News
NYC Mayor Eric Adams' former top advisor Ingrid Lewis-Martin to face new charges Thursday
New York City Mayor Eric Adams' former top advisor Ingrid Lewis-Martin is expected to face new charges Thursday, her attorney said. Back in December, Lewis-Martin and her son Glenn Martin II were indicted on bribery, money laundering and conspiracy charges. So far there's no word from officials on what the new charges are, except they are not federal. Lewis-Martin's attorney Arthur Aidala said prosecutors have not yet been forthcoming about what new charges she may face, saying "the District Attorney has refused to provide any details on the charges." Aidala said Lewis-Martin has spent a "lifetime of service as a law-abiding public servant." "What she does know is this: she has always served the city with integrity, and she will firmly plead not guilty to any charge," Aidala said. "While the specifics remain unclear, Ingrid is certain of one thing - she has broken no laws, and she is not guilty." Lewis-Martin was not just chief advisor to the mayor, but a longtime confidante who has worked with him for decades. "Mayor Adams was not involved in this matter and has not been accused of or implicated in any wrongdoing. He remains focused on what has always been his priority — serving the 8.5 million New Yorkers who call this city home and making their city safer and more affordable every single day. Ingrid Lewis-Martin no longer works for this administration," Adams press secretary Kayla Mamelak Altus said. Word of the new charges comes as Adams continues to poll in single digits in his effort to win re-election. "We have not been notified about any formal charges against Ingrid Lewis-Martin. Mayor Adams stands by her decades of public service and remains confident that the truth will prevail. Ingrid has dedicated her life to the people of New York City, and she deserves the presumption of innocence and the support of those who know her best," a spokesperson for Mayor Adams' re-election campaign said. Back in December, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleged Lewis-Martin was involved in a "quid pro quo" and had been "engaged in a long-running bribery, money laundering and conspiracy scheme by using her position and authority as the chief advisor to the New York City mayor, the second-highest position in city government, to illegally influence city decisions in exchange for in excess of $100,000 in cash and other benefits for herself and her son, Glenn Martin II." She previously pleaded not guilty to the initial indictment, which accused her of "naked cronyism" and favorable treatment of two real estate developers, Raizada "Pinky" Vaid and Mayank Dwivedi. "We allege that Lewis-Martin acted as an on-call consultant for Vaid and Dwivedi, serving at their pleasure to resolve whatever issues they had with DOB on their construction projects," Bragg said said at the time. Bragg alleged the two made two $50,000 payments to a joint bank account shared by Lewis-Martin and her son, who allegedly used the money to buy a $113,000 Porsche. Aidala previously said that all Lewis-Martin did was help constituents cut through government red tape. "We're very confident that the New Yorkers using their common sense in this courthouse will understand the ridiculousness of these charges ... I know there's a political motive here. This is ridiculous," Aidala said in December.