Attorney Says David Hearn Has ‘All Options’ After Prosecutors Abandoned Reflecting Pool Case, Outlet Reports

Prosecutors abandoned a federal case involving former Olympic canoeist David Hearn and alleged damage to the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool, an attorney said, according to The Guardian. The report said the decision ended the matter “abruptly,” prompting the defense to look at additional legal avenues after the government dropped the prosecution.

The case centered on allegations that Hearn was connected to damage to the reflecting pool at the Lincoln Memorial. While the report describes Hearn as having been prosecuted and points to prosecutors’ subsequent decision to abandon the matter, it does not, in the packet provided, include a Department of Justice filing, court order, or docket entry that confirms the timeline or procedural posture in official terms.

According to The Guardian, Hearn’s attorney said the defense will pursue “all options” and that Hearn “has a number of potential remedies” following the end of the prosecution. The attorney’s remarks, as described by the outlet, indicate the next phase will focus on how the case concluded and what outcomes are available to challenge the impact of a prosecution that was not carried through to resolution.

The report describes the government’s abandonment as a key development that shifted the focus from the alleged conduct to the legal consequences of charging and prosecution decisions. Without official confirmation in the material provided, Apex cannot independently verify whether the case was dismissed, discontinued, or resolved through another procedural mechanism, or whether any specific court filings were made public.

If prosecutors’ decision is reflected in a court docket or Department of Justice notice, the defense may seek remedies that depend on the case posture at abandonment, including requests tied to jurisdiction, evidentiary rulings, or other procedural matters. The availability of any remedy would turn on what the court permitted or ordered during the period before the government stopped pursuing the matter.

The case’s location also underscores the public-safety and public-property stakes often raised in federal proceedings involving prominent national landmarks. Even so, the defense posture after abandonment, as described by the outlet, suggests the immediate legal question now is not the underlying allegation alone, but the impact of the government’s decision to pursue charges and then end the case.

Apex will require Department of Justice or court-record confirmation to report the precise procedural outcome, such as whether prosecutors sought dismissal with or without prejudice, whether any plea-related actions occurred, or whether the matter was terminated at a particular stage. Until such primary documentation is identified, the account remains limited to what The Guardian reported through the defense attorney’s statements.