Defendants File To Dismiss In Murder Case

The representation for Abrianne Lillian Deserly, Calvin Florin Lester Jr. and Dillon Demery Wetsit has filed a motion to dismiss the charge of one count of second degree murder.

The indictment alleges that on Feb. 26, 2025, near Wolf Point, the defendants unlawfully and with malice aforethought, that is recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, killed John Doe, and aided and abetted the same.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Peck Tribes Department of Law & Justice and Roosevelt County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation.

The motion to dismiss the charges includes, “The government failed to preserve exculpatory evidence and/or potentially exculpatory evidence including but not limited to a pair of work boots, a metal pipe, pools of blood, and a cellphone all left at the scene.”

The government’s response includes, “The defendant argues that her due process rights were violated by the government’s failure to preserve four items of evidence: specifically, work boots worn by a co-conspriator the day after the murder, a metal pipe observed at the scene, a cell phone observed at the scene and collected days later by law enforcement, and pools of blood surrounding the victim.

The defendant asserts, “The cumulative effect of law enforcement’s conduct…has left the defense without access to critical evidence necessary for a fair trial.” And that “The government’s culpability, coupled with the resulting prejudice irreparably undermines the integrity of these proceedings.” Prosecutors say that because the defendant cannot make a showing of bad faith in law enforcement’s failure to collect the potential evidence, this motion should be denied.

The government also argues, “The defendant claims first that law enforcement destroyed evidence, and second that the FBI should have collected certain items that could have possibly proved exculpatory. This is purely speculative — defense argues simply that: “each item possessed clear exculpatory value — or, at a minimum, was potentially useful and/ or favorable to the defense — and law enforcement’s decision to discard or abandon the evidence was made with knowledge of its evidentiary significance.”

The prosecutors later noted, “Even if the agents could be said to have operated under bad faith, there is no allegation that the evidence the defendant wishes were collected at the time of the investigation would provide more than slight exculpatory evidence. Although the forensic analysis may have provided useful evidence in that it would allow Deserly to argue that another individual participated in the murder, the participation of a third party in the murder would not be directly relevant to the central issue in this case: whether Deserly aided and abetted the murder of John Doe. Deserly’s supposition that forensic analysis of the boots may have been able to prove another person’s participation in the murder, if it had existed, would only have provided slight exculpatory evidence as to Deserly’s relative role in the murder. Additionally, the phone is still in evidence and can be tested and examined should the defendant request it.”

“To obtain the relief requested, the defendant must establish bad faith. The defendant simply can’t. Here the arresting officer was a patrol officer with Fort Peck Tribes. The officer cut off the boots and disposed of the boots not to deprive their use by petitioner in her defense but because the arrestee was complaining of foot pain, was unable to remove the boots, and the discarded boots presented a medical hazard. At the time, those boots did not have obvious exculpatory value. While the defendant’s claims about how the Tribes and the FBI could have done a better investigation are certainly grounds for cross-examination at trial and arguments to be made to the jury, they are improper grounds for a dismissal of charges. This claim fails.”

Trials for the cases were scheduled for Jan. 6, 2026, in Great Falls, but motions to continue the trials have been filed.