Grand Forks Man Sentenced to 18 Months for Gross Sexual Imposition
Roman Harrow, 22, was sentenced to 18 months in prison after pleading guilty to five counts of gross sexual imposition.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 25, 2026, 11:43 a.m. ET
This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.
We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 25, 2026, 12:09 p.m. ET — checked 3h ago.
Earlier reports
Aug 25, 2026, 11:45 a.m. ET
Grand Forks Man Sentenced to 18 Months for Gross Sexual Imposition
Roman Harrow, 22, of Grand Forks, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on August 25, 2026, after signing a plea deal, according to Knox Radio. The sentence is significantly less than the statutory maximum of 20 years.
Harrow had been charged with five counts of Class A felony gross sexual imposition. The government alleged that he had sex with a minor at least six times over three years, starting in 2016 when he was between the ages of 11 and 14, Knox Radio reported.
Aug 25, 2026, 11:43 a.m. ETFirst report
Grand Forks Man Sentenced to 18 Months for Gross Sexual Imposition
A 22-year-old Grand Forks man was sentenced to 18 months in prison on August 25, 2026, after signing a plea deal, according to Knox Radio. Roman Harrow faced five counts of Class A felony gross sexual imposition, with a statutory maximum of 20 years.
The government alleged that Harrow had sex with a minor at least six times over three years, starting in 2016 when he was between the ages of 11 and 14, as reported by Knox Radio. The case is developing; further details have not been released.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 15:52current
First published.
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 15:43current
First published.
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 15:45current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.