In the David Hearn Reflecting Pool case, D.C. Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman pressed Justice Department lawyers over their refusal to agree to a dismissal that would permanently prevent the felony property-destruction charge from being filed again. The case against Hearn, a former Olympic canoeist, was already dismissed after prosecutors said the evidence did not support it.
The dispute is now procedural but consequential. The government moved to drop the allegation that Hearn damaged the liner of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. According to Courthouse News, prosecutors concluded that the damage resulted from a rushed, botched installation by contractor Atlantic Industrial Coatings, rather than Hearn's conduct.
On Aug. 6, Edelman dismissed the case but did not then decide whether the dismissal would be with or without prejudice. He ordered additional briefing, with a government filing due Aug. 18, Courthouse News reported. A dismissal with prejudice closes the case permanently and bars prosecutors from bringing the same charge again. Without prejudice, prosecutors can generally revive it if they choose and if the law permits.
Why does dismissal with prejudice matter in the David Hearn Reflecting Pool case?
It determines whether Hearn remains exposed to another prosecution over the same allegation. DOJ's decision to abandon a charge does not, by itself, answer that question when the dismissal is without prejudice.
At a later hearing reported Sept. 10 by Techdirt, Edelman raised the prospect that public statements by President Donald Trump about Hearn, one of Hearn's lawyers and D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro could be seen as pressure on the office to charge or recharge Hearn. The judge described the risk as a possible “unique threat of meritless re-prosecution,” according to the report.
The judge's comments were a question to the government, not a finding that political pressure had occurred or that a renewed prosecution was planned.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Spence responded that Trump's statements “speak for themselves,” Techdirt reported. Spence also argued that discussion of a future case was premature because no additional grand-jury action had occurred.
The original charge had accused Hearn of felony destruction of property connected to the Reflecting Pool. Courthouse News reported that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro moved to dismiss after the government determined it lacked evidence supporting the charge. The same report said Trump had criticized the dismissal as “a disgrace.”
The available reports establish the initial Aug. 6 dismissal and the later exchange over whether it should be final. They do not include a later court order resolving the with-prejudice question. That distinction matters: a hearing in which a judge tests DOJ's position is not the same thing as an order requiring the department to adopt it.
For readers trying to track the paper trail rather than the political noise, the key outstanding issue is narrow: whether Edelman will make the dismissal permanent or leave DOJ with an option to bring the charge again.
This story draws on original reporting from Techdirt.
