A federal judge on Friday questioned prosecutors about the Justice Department's decision to dismiss charges against former Olympian David Hearn in the Reflecting Pool vandalism case, particularly in light of public statements made by former President Donald Trump. U.S. District Judge Todd Edelman expressed skepticism regarding the prosecution's stance, pressing an attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office on why the case could not be dismissed with prejudice, which would prevent Hearn from being charged again.
In late July, the U.S. Attorney's Office moved to dismiss the criminal case against Hearn, acknowledging that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was a result of "flawed installation" rather than vandalism. However, the motion sought dismissal "without prejudice," leaving the possibility for Hearn to be recharged. Hearn's attorneys argue that public statements from Trump and other officials following the initial dismissal, which they contend falsely accused Hearn of vandalism, warrant a dismissal "with prejudice."
During the hearing, Judge Edelman directly questioned Michael Spence, an attorney from the U.S. Attorney's Office, about the basis for keeping the case open. "Where is it gonna come from?" Edelman asked, referring to potential future evidence that could support new charges. Spence responded that he did not know what the future would hold but argued that the court should not prevent a future grand jury from considering new evidence if it were to emerge. When asked if the office was still investigating Hearn's conduct, Spence stated, "The U.S. Attorney's Office is not, no."
Edelman also focused on Trump's public comments, including a social media post urging U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to reconsider her decision to drop the case and suggesting he might fire her if she did not. The judge asked how he should interpret these statements, other than as pressure from the executive branch to pursue a prosecution that the office itself had indicated lacked merit. Spence countered that it was premature to address the influence of those statements, as the case had been dismissed and not submitted to a new grand jury.
Hearn was previously indicted in a case that prosecutors now concede was baseless. Spence defended the initial indictment, stating that prosecutors believed they had probable cause based on the evidence available at the time, and that a grand jury had agreed. However, Edelman expressed doubt about how Hearn could be assured of protection against baseless charges in the future, given his past indictment.