DOJ asked court to dismiss Reflecting Pool vandalism case against Olympian David Hearn, prosecutors citing “botched installation”

Federal prosecutors have asked a judge to dismiss a vandalism-related indictment charging Olympic canoeist David Hearn with damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, CBS News reported July 31, citing a DOJ motion that disputes the vandalism theory. The request, as described by CBS News, turns on prosecutors’ position that the physical damage stemmed from issues with how the pool components were installed, not from deliberate acts by Hearn.

According to the CBS News account, prosecutors argued that the condition of the Reflecting Pool and the nature of the alleged damage were consistent with a “botched installation.” In that filing, DOJ sought to prevent the case from moving forward on the vandalism allegation, contending that the government’s theory of intent does not match the cause of the damage.

Hearn is an Olympian and the alleged incident involved the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, a high-profile national landmark. Under federal criminal procedure, a motion to dismiss typically asks the court to resolve legal sufficiency issues at an early stage, before the case proceeds to trial or other fact-heavy proceedings, depending on the grounds asserted by the government.

The CBS News report indicates that DOJ’s dismissal request is aimed at the core framing of the case, not merely a narrowed charge. By citing “botched installation” as the cause of the damage, prosecutors are effectively disputing the government’s premise that the incident involved vandalism and the conduct necessary to support that type of accusation.

If the court grants the government’s request, it would end the pending federal action (absent later filings or alternative proceedings), meaning prosecutors would not obtain a merits ruling or trial verdict in the matter as currently charged. If the court denies the motion, the case would typically move forward with additional court steps, such as further litigation over evidence and procedure, before a final resolution.

The CBS News report does not, in the information provided for this draft, include the specific court, docket details, or the exact legal basis DOJ cited, such as whether prosecutors sought dismissal on evidentiary sufficiency, legal interpretation, or other grounds. The Department of Justice has also not been cited in the provided record for a primary, Justice Department-published document covering the motion.

Because the central claim of DOJ’s requested dismissal is based on a single news report and no accompanying court order or DOJ filing is included in the provided materials, the case status and the court’s ruling, if any, should be verified through the applicable docket and the filing itself before further factual detail is published.