The U.S. Department of Justice has filed to dismiss the vandalism case against former Olympic canoeist David Hearn without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of re-charging him in the future. Hearn’s legal team had requested a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar prosecutors from reviving the felony charges.
Judge Todd Edelman previously dismissed the case against Hearn, a 67-year-old former U.S. Olympian, but deferred a decision on whether to grant the dismissal with prejudice. The defense argued that President Donald Trump’s public criticism of the case’s dismissal—calling it a “mistake” and saying prosecutors “choked”—undermines Hearn’s right to finality under the Constitution.
Prosecutors, led by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, countered that dismissal without prejudice is warranted to preserve the option of re-presenting the case if new evidence emerges. In a court filing, Pirro’s office stated that “Dismissal with prejudice is not necessary to protect the defendant from any future risk of prosecutorial overreach here.” The filing emphasized that a grand jury process would provide Hearn with protections against improper prosecution if the case were re-indicted.
The dispute centers on whether the government’s decision to drop charges reflects a legitimate legal strategy or political interference. Hearn was initially charged with destruction of property after a June 19 visit to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, where officials claimed he damaged the liner. However, newly revealed evidence suggests the damage may have predated his visit.
A U.S. National Park Service engineer warned the Trump administration in an email sent June 11 that the reflecting pool’s liner was peeling due to renovation materials, specifically “overspray” from polyurea application along the perimeter joint. The engineer noted that the peeled area was “very thin and will not impact the strength of the liner.” Prosecutors acknowledged they were not aware of this documentation at the time of Hearn’s indictment.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Spence argued in a filing that the late-provided documents cast doubt on whether Hearn caused the damage. The defense has characterized the potential for re-charging Hearn as “prosecutorial harassment,” while prosecutors maintain that the possibility of new evidence justifies leaving the case open.
The judge has not yet ruled on whether to grant the dismissal with or without prejudice.