A federal judge on Friday pressed prosecutors on why they are seeking to dismiss a vandalism case against former Olympian David Hearn without fully closing the door to future charges, despite acknowledging no evidence of wrongdoing.
U.S. District Judge Todd Edelman questioned attorneys from the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office during a hearing, asking why prosecutors would object to dismissing the case with prejudice—a move that would permanently bar any future prosecution. The judge’s line of inquiry highlighted concerns over the government’s rationale for leaving the case open for potential re-charging.
Background and Core Developments
In late July, the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a motion to dismiss the criminal case against Hearn, stating that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was caused by ‘flawed installation’ rather than vandalism. The acknowledgment contradicted earlier claims by officials, including President Donald Trump, who had accused Hearn and others of vandalizing the pool.
However, the motion to dismiss the indictment was filed ‘without prejudice,’ meaning prosecutors could seek to re-file charges if new evidence emerged. Hearn’s attorneys have argued that public statements from Trump and other officials—which falsely alleged Hearn’s involvement—warrant a dismissal ‘with prejudice,’ permanently ending the case.
Judge’s Scrutiny of Prosecutors’ Position
During Friday’s hearing, Judge Edelman pressed prosecutors on their reasoning for opposing a dismissal with prejudice. An attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Michael Spence, responded that he did not know what future developments might arise, though prosecutors have stated they are not currently investigating Hearn for any additional wrongdoing.
The judge’s skepticism underscored broader concerns about the government’s approach, particularly in light of the lack of evidence linking Hearn to the pool’s damage. Hearn’s legal team has argued that the case should be dismissed with prejudice to prevent further legal harassment, citing the political pressure and false accusations stemming from Trump’s public statements.
Political and Legal Reactions
Trump, who has repeatedly criticized the handling of the case, posted on social media in August that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro should ‘revisit her hastily made decision’ to dismiss the indictment. Pirro, a former Trump ally, has not publicly addressed the president’s remarks.
Hearn’s attorneys, including Norman Eisen, have framed the case as an example of political interference, arguing that the government’s decision to keep the case open without prejudice is an attempt to appease critics rather than uphold justice. The legal team has also pointed to the absence of any evidence against Hearn as a reason for a permanent dismissal.
Next Steps in the Case
Judge Edelman has not yet issued a ruling on whether the case will be dismissed with or without prejudice. The judge’s questioning suggests he is weighing the legal merits of the government’s position against the potential for further legal harm to Hearn. A decision is expected in the coming weeks.
The case has drawn attention not only for its legal implications but also for the broader debate over prosecutorial discretion and the influence of political rhetoric on high-profile cases.