FOLLOW US

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is urging a Montana federal court to dismiss numerous pieces of evidence in a case alleging the agency's liability for a former officer's sexual assault of a Northern Cheyenne woman. In its filing Friday, the BIA argued that much of the evidence presented by the plaintiff, identified as L.B., is inadmissible due to hearsay, undisclosed opinions, and privileged testimony.

According to the BIA, L.B. has leaned on various inadmissible materials, including technical research articles, studies, unreliable opinions on hedonic damages, and unrelated allegations of sexual misconduct by other BIA officers. The agency contends these submissions fail to meet evidentiary standards and do not pertain directly to the case.

"The court should exclude this evidence to ensure a trial based on admissible material and prevent undue prejudice," the agency stated.

This evidentiary dispute comes after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case in July, vacating a 2023 summary judgment in favor of the BIA. The appellate court determined there was a factual dispute about whether the accused officer, Dana Bullcoming, was acting within the scope of his employment during the 2015 assault.

Allegations Against the Officer

L.B. filed her lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act in 2018, alleging that Bullcoming, while responding to a domestic disturbance call, coerced her into sexual acts by threatening her with jail time. She claims the assault resulted in a pregnancy, and she now has a child fathered by Bullcoming. L.B. has stated that she felt compelled to comply out of fear of losing her job and custody of her children.

BIA’s Challenges to Evidence

The BIA has taken issue with L.B.’s reliance on studies to argue that sexual assault can serve as an intimidation tactic aligned with law enforcement purposes. The agency asserts these studies are hearsay and lack the expert testimony necessary to interpret them.

Furthermore, the BIA has moved to exclude testimony from Dr. Ann Adair regarding hedonic damages, which assess the value of an individual beyond economic contributions. The agency argues that Adair’s methodology strays from established definitions and offers unreliable conclusions, citing a proposed damages range of $500,000 to $8 million based on flawed extrapolations.

In addition, L.B. has sought to introduce evidence of other alleged sexual assaults by BIA officers. The BIA contends that these incidents, including one under investigation from 2024, are irrelevant and inadmissible. "Evidence of any alleged assault by other BIA officers occurring after Bullcoming's misconduct has no bearing on whether Bullcoming acted for personal reasons or a law enforcement purpose," the agency argued.