Judge to Decide Whether to Dismiss Reflecting Pool Vandalism Indictment Against Former Olympian
A Washington judge will soon rule on a request to dismiss the indictment of former Olympic canoeist David Hearn, who prosecutors say lacks sufficient evidence of vandalism at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
A Washington judge said he will issue a ruling soon on a motion to dismiss the indictment of former U.S. Olympic canoeist David Hearn, who has been charged with damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Prosecutors asked that the case be dismissed without prejudice, allowing a grand jury to consider new charges if additional evidence emerges, while Hearn’s attorney argued the case should be dismissed with prejudice to prevent further prosecution.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Spence told Judge Todd Edelman that there is a public interest in preserving the option for a future grand jury if new information comes to light. Hearn, 67, was indicted in early July on a charge of destruction of property after a two-square-foot piece of the pool’s liner was found detached. He maintains he only touched the liner to feel a partially detached section and did not intentionally damage it.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro later informed the court that the Department of the Interior had determined the damage resulted from a flawed installation, not from Hearn’s actions. Following that disclosure, Pirro requested the indictment be dismissed. President Donald Trump publicly disagreed with Pirro’s assessment, calling the incident vandalism.
During the hearing, Hearn’s lawyer, Steve Levin, said there is “nothing that can save the case that was dismissed” and urged the court to dismiss the indictment with prejudice to protect his client from repeated charges. Spence responded that prosecutors acted in good faith and that the case should remain open to a future grand jury if further evidence is uncovered.
Judge Edelman said he will consider the arguments and issue a decision shortly. After the hearing, Hearn thanked supporters and framed the case as a matter of defending democracy.