Emergency response ongoing after early-morning incident

WASHBURN, ND — In a trial that stirred local tensions, McLean County rancher Caleb Fallgatter was found guilty on June 26 of allowing his cattle to roam free, concluding a contentious legal battle fraught with allegations against local law enforcement and area ranchers.

Fallgatter faced charges of allowing his cattle to be at-large and of animal neglect following an October 2023 seizure of 323 cattle from pastures being leased on Three Affiliated Tribes land, who were not notified of the seizure by McLean County law enforcement until the seizure was already underway.

The trial, closely watched due to claims of false information used in obtaining the warrant and potential conflicts of interest involving Sheriff Jerry Kerzmann and his family ranch, ended with a verdict after just over two hours of jury deliberation.

Fallgatter’s legal troubles began in October 2023 when his cattle were seized in an incident that triggered both civil and criminal proceedings.

The state argued that Fallgatter failed to maintain adequate fencing on his three leased properties, resulting in his cattle wandering onto roadways and neighboring lands. They further alleged that Fallgatter’s cattle were being neglected.

Reports from local residents and law enforcement indicated that the cattle were a recurring nuisance throughout the summer and fall of 2023. Additionally, the prosecution questioned the feasibility of managing a large ranch from over two hours away, where Fallgatter resided.

Conversely, the defense contended that the search warrant was based and issued upon inaccurate information provided by Sheriff Kerzmann’s department to the judge in an effort to seize the cattle. They argued that the cattle were securely fenced and that many of the alleged infractions were exaggerated or fabricated.

The defense also highlighted a potential conflict of interest, noting that Kerzmann is related to Louis and Scott Simenson, the chief complainants and former leasees of the property, Fallgatter’s neighbors. The defense presented evidence that in the days after the seizure, the Kerzmann and the Simensons loaded the seized cattle onto trailers with the intention of having them sold at Kist Livestock. According to the defense, proceeds from this sale were to be distributed to the McLean County Sheriff’s Office and the Simensons, raising additional questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Of the 323 cattle seized, Fallgatter testified that only 317 were delivered or returned to him, arguing that this discrepancy suggests that the Sheriff and/or the Simensons failed to return six of Fallgatter’s cattle, implying they were effectively stolen.

The prosecution argued that Fallgatter’s cattle were repeatedly found on roadways and neighboring properties in 2023. Erickson presented multiple eyewitness accounts from local residents, primarily the Simensons, who testified to seeing the cattle roaming freely and causing damage.

The prosecution also highlighted reports from tribal law enforcement officers who had observed the cattle at large on several occasions.

A significant part of the prosecution’s case was the condition of the cattle.

They presented evidence that the animals were suffering from treatable conditions such as pink eye and hoof rot through testimony by the veterinarian who was called to conduct an evaluation of the cattle in the days following the seizure. She testified that these conditions indicated neglect, arguing that proper care had not been provided. Erickson emphasized that Fallgatter’s failure to provide necessary medical care constituted a clear case of animal neglect and public endangerment.

Later the prosecution would contend that a lack of grass in the pastures owned by the Fallgatters was also a form of neglect.

Fallgatter’s defense team in cross examination responded by presenting evidence that the cattle had, only days prior to their seizure by the Sheriff’s Office, undergone a series of vaccinations and treatments directly aimed at the issues in question. They also called into question the veterinarian’s experience, noting that this was her first time ever conducting such an evaluation and that some of the issues she found, such as a missing eye on one cow, was from years earlier when the cow was a calf.

The defense team concluded by noting that no photos were taken of the cattle during the veterinarian’s evaluation and explained how some issues, such as hoof rot, could have been the result of cattle being kept in a much smaller feedlot in abnormally wet conditions following their seizure.

The prosecution presented a series of witnesses who testified that they had witnessed the Fallgatter cattle loose, with some testifying that they needed only to approach them with a vehicle to force them to return to the pasture. The prosecution argued that if the cattle could return to their pasture with such ease, then the fencing in question was not properly securing the cattle and exacerbating the repeated issues.

They presented exhibits of photographs which they argued showed fencing that was not up to standard, in states of disrepair or outright missing from one of the pastures leased by the Fallgatters.

The defense in cross examination called into question the validity of claims that the Fallgatter’s cattle were those witnessed, with many witnesses testifying that other cattle in the area were routinely out as well. Only a single witness among the many who testified concretely stated that they personally witnessed the Fallgatter brand on some at-large cattle.

The prosecution then presented evidence in testimony and photographs that damage to a silage pit occurred on the Simenson’s ranch, and that the cattle responsible belonged to the Fallgatters. The defense acquiesced that the incident was true, but noted that it was not only the Fallgatter’s cattle who were found to have caused the damage and it was an isolated incident common in ranching in North Dakota.

Fallgatter’s defense, led by attorneys Fintan L. Dooley and Lynn Boughey, focused on what they argued was a lack of evidence throughout the criminal trial. They argued that the charges were based on procedural errors and false information, aiming to demonstrate that Fallgatter was not guilty of the offenses alleged.

The defense focused on challenging the credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution during the day prior.

During a crucial moment in court, Judge Lindsey Nieuwsma upheld repeated objections from the prosecution regarding approximately 15 pieces of photographic evidence that the defense argued were crucial to their case.

Boughey contended that these photos demonstrated that the Simensons also owned cattle that were not properly secured, escaping into the Fallgatter pasture. He insisted that several of these images could prove that Simenson’s bulls had impregnated Fallgatter’s cattle.

The prosecution objected, asserting that the photos depicted calves born months after the events in question in October. In response, the defense argued that the gestation period of cattle meant that photos showing calves born in March could still indicate events from months earlier, potentially casting doubt on the timing of fence damage.

Despite these arguments, Judge Nieuwsma deemed the photos inadmissible.

Additionally, the defense raised concerns about the validity of the search warrant, but Nieuwsma prohibited them from presenting this matter to the jury, citing its ongoing review in another case. Although the defense was not permitted to directly challenge the validity of the search warrant in this trial, they indirectly questioned the necessity and motives behind the warrant’s issuance through multiple lines of questioning with witnesses.

The defense presented a variety of witnesses, including neighbors, a fence contractor, family members, and Fallgatter himself, to testify. These witnesses affirmed that during the period covered by the search warrant—its filing, issuance, and execution—the cattle were properly contained. They described ongoing efforts to mend fences and maintain the cattle’s enclosure, as well as ongoing veterinary care to manage conditions like pink eye and hoof rot.

According to the defense witnesses, any instances of cattle being loose were isolated incidents promptly addressed.

Among the defense witnesses was Rod Froehlich, a prominent figure in North Dakota’s ranching community. Froehlich’s distinguished career includes induction into the North Dakota Cowboy Hall of Fame for his contributions to ranching and rodeo. He has served as a state representative and held leadership roles in the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association, advocating for ranchers and safeguarding the state’s beef industry.

During the trial, Froehlich testified that Fallgatter’s cattle were securely fenced behind recently repaired barriers, in good health, and disputed the prosecution’s allegations of negligence. His testimony supported the defense’s position that the charges against Fallgatter lacked merit and may have been influenced by personal biases within law enforcement.

In response, the prosecution highlighted concerns about potential personal bias, noting that Froehlich is Fallgatter’s grandfather by marriage.

The pivotal moment during the trial’s second day occurred when McLean County Deputy Jericho Swanson testified. Under examination, Swanson admitted that he had filed the affidavit for the search warrant based on second-hand information and had not personally witnessed the cattle being loose. This revelation strengthened the defense’s argument that the search warrant relied on unreliable information.

During cross-examination, the prosecution pressed Swanson on the source of his information. Swanson explained that reports had been received regarding Fallgatter’s loose cattle, and he had previously seen cattle at-large, though couldn’t definitively confirm they belonged to the Fallgatters.

The defense also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, pointing to Kerzmann’s familial ties to Louis and Scott Simenson, former lessees of the land now occupied by Fallgatter. They suggested that many of the complaints to the Sheriff’s Office originated from the Simensons, implying that personal connections may have influenced Kerzmann’s actions and thus cast doubts on the impartiality of the legal proceedings surrounding the warrant.

Throughout the trial, cross-examinations were intense, particularly during Kerzmann’s testimony. The defense scrutinized his motivations and decisions, alleging that his pursuit of the search warrant might have been driven by a personal vendetta rather than genuine public safety concerns.

Kerzmann defended himself by asserting that he had taken measures to remain neutral due to the conflict of interest, preferring tribal authorities to handle the matter. However, he stated that he felt compelled to act when no other solution was apparent.

In response to the defense’s questioning about the location of the cattle during the seizure, Kerzmann admitted they were in a pasture behind a fence, which he had cut to retrieve them.

When pressed further on why he cut the fence if the cattle were not at large, Kerzmann explained that as a law enforcement officer, he was obligated to execute the warrant as issued, which instructed him to seize all cattle, regardless of their location.

The defense then questioned Kerzmann about the fate of the seized cattle. He confirmed that they were transported to the Simensons’ ranch, the only suitable location with access to feedlots and water.

During closing arguments, the prosecution reiterated their position that Fallgatter’s alleged neglect had resulted in multiple instances of cattle being at-large, posing a threat to public safety. They urged the jury to consider the testimonies of local residents and law enforcement officers as proof of Fallgatter’s purported failure in managing his cattle responsibly.

In contrast, the defense focused on highlighting inconsistencies and potential biases in the prosecution’s case. They underscored the absence of direct evidence linking Fallgatter to intentional neglect and emphasized testimonies supporting the contention that the cattle were generally well-contained and cared for.

The defense also pointed out that the only beneficiaries of the cattle seizure were the Simensons, relatives of Sheriff Kerzmann, who were compensated significantly for storing the cattle.

In their concluding remarks, they criticized the seizure as unnecessary, labeling Sheriff Kerzmann as a “modern-day cattle rustler with a badge.”

Following deliberations that lasted just over two hours, the jury reached a mixed verdict.

Fallgatter was acquitted of animal neglect, but found guilty of allowing his cattle to roam at-large. The verdict prompted emotional reactions by family members on both sides of the case.

Attorney Boughey emphasized that the critical issue of obtaining a search warrant to seize cattle that were no longer at large remains a key component of the civil trial, noting that combining this with a seizure order without a valid basis for either action undermines the legal process and raises serious procedural concerns. Fallgatter’s other attorney, Dooley, said the civil case’s significance is important, noting the right to a jury trial for alleged damages. He argues that allowing damages from the civil case to be included in restitution amounts to “double-dipping,” misusing the criminal process and potentially inflating the penalties unfairly.

A civil case, set for a hearing in July, will further examine the legitimacy of the search warrant and the actions taken by Kerzmann and McLean County State’s Attorney Ladd Erickson. The outcome of this civil case could have significant implications, not only for Fallgatter’s criminal conviction, but the McLean County Sheriff’s Office, the McLean County State’s Attorney Office and a broader state-wide legal precedence.