What's next for Nick Houck? Wednesday's hearing could answer several big questions

Nick Houck's perjury case is scheduled to go before a judge on Wednesday in Nelson County at 2:30.

I'm Shay McAlister, and this is Shay Informed: an independent, ad-free platform dedicated to honest journalism with compassion and clarity.

Are you new here? Sign up for the free weekly newsletter or subscribe to support our mission and access behind-the-scenes content, podcasts, and in-depth stories reserved for paid subscribers.

Nick Houck is expected back in a Nelson County courtroom this week, for a hearing that's shaping up to be a busy one. There are three separate issues on the table, all of which could define how the rest of this case plays out.

First up: the prosecutor has filed notice that he will ask Judge Charles Simms to move the trial to a new date. The reasoning, according to the motion, is that one of the Commonwealth's key witnesses will be traveling out of the country and unavailable to testify on the currently scheduled date.

Prosecutors request new trial date in Nick Houck perjury case

Commonwealth’s Attorney Ryan Williamson is asking the judge for a new trial date in the high-profile case, stating a key witness will be out of the country in November. I’m Shay McAlister, and this is Shay Informed: an independent, ad-free platform dedicated to honest journalism with

Shay InformedShay McAlister

The court document doesn't name the witness, doesn't say where they're traveling, and doesn't indicate how long they'll be gone. It also doesn't propose a new date outright- just notice that the Commonwealth will make the request when the hearing convenes.

That leaves a few open questions heading into Wednesday: how far out prosecutors are hoping to push the trial, whether Houck's defense team will fight the request or agree to it, and how much of a delay Judge Simms is willing to grant. Houck's trial had been set for November 9th, so depending on how this shakes out, that date could move by weeks or months.

Last month, I dug into the witness list, and how each one is connected to the case. You can read my reporting on that here.

This week's court date is also expected to cover the Commonwealth's more detailed bill of particulars- a filing that spells out the specific statements prosecutors allege were false, which sit at the core of the perjury case against Houck.

In court earlier this month, Houck's attorney argued he needed more information about exactly what statement, out of the dozens provided in evidence, is the statement alleged to be false.

"My request is to have the Commonwealth own what they are putting up in the indictment, which is very vague. It does nothing but mimic the language of the statute. Exactly what words were spoken that they maintain as a material false statement?," Ferguson said to both the judge, and the Commonwealth's Attorney at the August 28th hearing.

The prosecutor has since provided a more detailed record, but document has been sealed, meaning it's not publicly available like other documents in the case.

Depending on what is inside that envelope- the judge and attorneys may agree enough specificity has been provided and leave it at that, or it could turn into oral argument.

In addition to deciding if the prosecution has provided enough detail, the judge will also be tasked with deciding if the alleged false statement is considered "material". I dove into what this means, and how it applies in this case in a recent podcast episode. Paid subscribers can listen now!

Judge Simms has already given some indication of how he's thinking about all of this. He's signaled he doesn't believe an evidentiary hearing- one involving sworn witness testimony- is necessary at this stage. The exception would be if Houck's defense disputes that the statements, as the Commonwealth has laid them out in the bill of particulars, are accurate. If that dispute exists, it could change the calculus on how much needs to be litigated before trial, and when.

And finally- late afternoon Tuesday Houck's attorney filed a motion seeking to have the perjury charge dismissed, saying the prosecution has failed to prove his case.

The argument: Kentucky law says a false statement only counts as perjury if it could have actually affected the outcome of the proceeding. Houck's attorney says that bar isn't met here- because in both instances cited by the Commonwealth, the grand jury (or the prosecutor) already knew the truth about where Houck was on July 4, 2015, before he ever answered the question. This will be another decision left on Judge Simms' desk.

I spent moths going through the hundreds of hours of Crystal Rogers trial tape so you don't have to! You can listen to my podcast covering both trials right now to hear the most compelling testimony, in depth exclusive interviews and my observations, straight from my notebook.

The bigger picture

Houck, a former Bardstown police officer, faces a perjury charge connected to his role in the long-running Crystal Rogers case. Houck's brother Brooks Houck, and two of his former employes- Joseph Lawson, and Steve Lawson- were all convicted in her death and disappearance last year.

A note on coverage

I will be in the courtroom Wednesday afternoon and will be taking pictures, collecting interviews and scribbling notes and observations as fast as I can.

I am working for my paid subscribers on days like this! To all of you- thank you for making this important work possible. To everyone else- feel free to join us! Paid subscribers get a post-court breakdown sent straight to their inbox, a 30 minute deep dive podcast episode, shared wherever you listen to podcasts and you get to join the conversation in the exclusive comment section on my website.