Judge Criticizes Trump Pressure Over Pool Vandalism Case

David Hearn, a former U.S. Olympian, returned to court to press a judge for a formal bar on federal prosecutors pursuing fresh charges after his Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool vandalism case was dismissed.

Hearn and his attorneys appeared before Judge Todd Edelman, who previously handled the case involving damage to the Reflecting Pool in Washington, caused in 2011.

Case Move Leaves Door Open, Defence Says

In late July, the District of Columbia U.S. Attorney’s Office sought to dismiss the criminal case. In its filing, it said the damage to the Reflecting Pool “was the result of flawed installation” rather than vandalism.

Although the government asked Edelman to dismiss the indictment, the motion requested dismissal “without prejudice”, which would allow prosecutors to potentially bring the matter back to a grand jury and seek new charges.

Hearn’s lawyers argued that public statements made by President Donald Trump and other officials in the weeks after the filing wrongly accused Hearn and others of vandalising the pool. They said the case should therefore be dismissed “with prejudice”, effectively preventing prosecutors from recharging him.

Trump said on 7 August in a post on social media that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro “should re-visit her hastily made decision” to drop the case.

Judge Questions Need for Re-Prosecution

At Friday’s hearing, Edelman pressed Michael Spence, an attorney from Pirro’s office, on why prosecutors would oppose dismissal with prejudice when prosecutors had not yet presented evidence that Hearn committed a crime.

Spence replied that he did not know what the future might bring, adding that if evidence emerged later, there would be no reason for the court to prevent a future grand jury from returning an indictment.

Edelman asked where such evidence would come from, and Spence said he did not know.

The judge then asked whether prosecutors were still investigating Hearn’s conduct. Spence responded that they were not.

Trump Comments Scrutinised in Court

Edelman also focused on Trump’s public comments about Hearn’s case and suggestions that Pirro could be fired if she did not revisit the decision to dismiss. Edelman challenged how the judge should treat those remarks.

“How do I conclude these statements as anything other than statement by the chief executive urging your office to pursue a prosecution that you have told me is meritless?” Edelman asked. He added that it appeared to be a threat of “not just re-prosecution but meritless re-prosecution”.

Spence said it was premature to address whether prosecutors would seek new charges because the case had been dropped and was not being re-submitted to a new grand jury.

Spence further argued that if the government later moved to re-charge Hearn, the grand jury process would provide protection by preventing an indictment where there was no evidential basis.

Edelman expressed scepticism, pointing to the fact that Hearn had previously been indicted in a case the government now concedes was baseless.

Spence said the prosecution team believed, based on the evidence available at the time, there was probable cause, and that the grand jury agreed.

Join the discussion?

7 September 2026