Attorney for Former Olympic Canoeist Seeks Permanent Dismissal of Reflecting Pool Case
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
Lawyers for former Olympic canoeist David Hearn have asked a D.C. court to bar any future prosecution related to a felony charge over damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, citing procedural flaws and political motivation.
Attorneys representing former Olympic canoeist David "Davey" Hearn filed a motion asking a D.C. Superior Court to dismiss the felony charge stemming from alleged damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and to prevent the case from being refiled. The lawyers argue that the prosecution was driven by political considerations and lacked sufficient factual basis, noting that internal Interior Department documents showed the damage resulted from a rushed installation process rather than Hearn's actions.
Hearn was arrested in June after he touched material that had been recently installed on the pool bottom. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro previously asserted that the evidence proved Hearn caused at least $1,000 in damage, leading to a grand-jury indictment. However, Pirro’s office later moved to dismiss the charge after learning that the damage was largely due to the botched installation, and it also sought dismissal of related misdemeanor charges against three other individuals.
"By moving to dismiss, the U.S. Attorney’s Office did the right thing," said Steve Levin, an attorney for Hearn.
Hearn’s filing requests dismissal with prejudice, which would prevent the government from bringing the same charge again, and cites statements from a National Park Service engineer who indicated that the liner had been cut to stop further peeling. The attorneys also criticized a press conference held by Pirro, alleging violations of professional ethics.
The case remains pending in D.C. Superior Court, and a scheduled hearing has been cancelled while the judge considers the motion.