Prosecutors in Washington, D.C., face significant challenges in securing a felony conviction against David Hearn, a former Olympian accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Hearn is scheduled to go to trial in late September on a charge of felony destruction of property, which carries a potential 10-year prison sentence.
Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for D.C., alleges Hearn, 67, "forcefully and violently" pulled at and destroyed the pool's liner. Hearn, however, claims he did not vandalize anything, stating he merely touched a piece of the flapping liner after a 52-mile bike ride on June 19. Video shows Hearn being placed in handcuffs while holding his bicycle.
The indictment came amid public attention on the pool's deteriorating condition following a costly renovation. Hearn's arrest occurred at a time when the Trump administration sought to attribute the pool's problems to vandalism rather than issues with the renovation itself.
Proving Malice and Damage Value
A key hurdle for prosecutors will be proving Hearn acted with malicious intent, a requirement for the destruction of property charge under D.C. law. "Malicious means you're doing it with a black heart, with evil intent," explained Glenn Kirschner, a former prosecutor in Pirro's office. Kirschner suggested that Hearn's actions, as publicly known, appear to stem from curiosity rather than malice.
Adding to the prosecution's difficulties, the charge requires demonstrating that the alleged damage exceeded $1,000 in value. Proving the monetary worth of a small section of a pool liner, especially one that was already reportedly peeling and destined for further repair, presents another complex task. "Unless he really slashed it and removed the [liner], if all he did was pull up and peel what was already damaged, it seems hard to prove he caused $1,000 of damage," said Barbara McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. attorney.
Skepticism From Legal Experts and Juries
Legal experts also point to a history of skepticism from D.C. juries towards high-profile cases pursued by Pirro's office. In recent years, numerous cases brought by the office have resulted in dropped charges, acquittals, or downgraded misdemeanors, with some judges criticizing the prosecution of what were perceived as weak cases.
"I think a D.C. jury is going to be mad," said Abbe Smith, a professor at Georgetown Law. "They’re going to say, ‘Are you serious? This isn’t a serious crime that needs to be prosecuted, that I need to sit and give up my time for.’" Smith anticipates that the charges may be downgraded or dropped before the trial date, or that a jury would acquit Hearn swiftly, drawing parallels to the acquittal of Sean Dunn, who was charged with assaulting a federal officer after throwing a sandwich.