FirstAlerts

Minnesota Man Sentenced to 40 Years for Abusing Two Girls on Crow Reservation

Robert Dean Dust was sentenced Sept. 3, 2026, in U.S. District Court in Montana.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 3, 2026, 10:56 a.m. ET
Developing · not yet checked for updates

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 have not yet searched for new coverage of this beyond the reports listed below.

A Minnesota man was Sept. 3, 2026, to 40 years in prison for sexually abusing two girls on the Crow Indian Reservation, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Montana. Robert Dean Dust, 35, was also ordered to serve 20 years of supervised release. A jury found Dust guilty in February 2026 of two counts of abusive sexual contact of a child and one count of aggravated sexual abuse. The government alleged that Dust began abusing the girls in Lodge Grass around 2010, and that the abuse continued until about 2015. The girls reported the abuse to law enforcement in May 2024. Acting U.S. Attorney Mark Steger Smith announced the sentence. U.S. District Judge Susan P. Watters presided. The FBI and the Bureau of Indian Affairs conducted the investigation.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 13 Sept 2026, 14:56current

    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.