Motion To Dismiss Hearing Scheduled For Deserly On Feb. 18

A hearing on Abrianne Lillian Deserly’s motion to dismiss her case has been scheduled for Feb. 18 in U.S. District Court in Great Falls.

The motion seeks to dismiss the charge of one count of second degree murder. Trial for the case was scheduled for Jan. 6, but has been continued until after the motion to dismiss hearing.

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

In the defendant’s reply to government’s response to motion to dismiss, the defense for Deserly argues “The government concedes that the boots in question, owned and worn by co-defendant Dillon Wetsit, have been destroyed. However, the government fails to explain how the C-shaped injuries on the face of the decedent do not correspond to the eyelets of Wetsit’s destroyed work boots, as opined by its own coroner.”

The argument noted that the government’s pathologist Deland J. Weyrauch, M.D., found that the decedent died from blunt force trauma injuries and described observing “three distinct C-shaped lacerations” on the decedent’s face. The defense states that Deserly was wearing tennis shoes and could not have reasonably caused C-shaped injuries; work boots, like the one worn by Dillon Wetsit among other men present, would have caused the C-shaped injuries. “The boots then were and are apparently exculpatory in nature, for they point to someone other than Ms. Deserly as the person or persons who inflicted the extreme life-ending injuries upon the decedent. The government has not and cannot refute this important point.”

The defense concludes, “The boots were and are apparently exculpatory and material. They are apparently exculpatory because they are very likely tied to the man [Dillon Wetsit] who, Ms. Deserly alleges, is responsible for kicking the decedent and causing the C-shaped injuries and ultimately causing his death. Wetsit, of course, had foot and hand injuries shortly after the murder and who lied to investigators about his involvement in the murder.

“Further, the boots, if considered to be potentially exculpatory evidence, were destroyed through the bad faith actions of law enforcement. That is, despite the government’s claim to the contrary, law enforcement knew of Wetsit’s heavy and direct involvement surrounding the circumstances of the death of the victim. They knew of the C-shaped injuries to the decedent’s face, and they suspected those injuries were caused by eyelets of work boots. They knew Wetsit lied to them about his whereabouts on the night of the murder. And they knew Ms. Deserly was wearing shoes, not boots, on the night in question. Yet, they destroyed Wetsit’s boots anyway. Likewise, the cell phone, pipe and blood could have been tested for DNA and forensically analyzed, and the results could have been exculpatory as to Ms. Deserly.”