Judge bars U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro from charging former Olympian in Reflecting Pool case after Trump comments

WASHINGTON — A Washington Superior Court judge has permanently barred Jeanine Pirro’s office from filing charges against a former Olympic canoeist for damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Judge Todd Edelman issued an order Thursday dismissing the case with prejudice. Edelman cited the “exceptional circumstances” of the case and said the government’s “own representations clearly show” that filing another indictment against David “Davey” Hearn “is theoretical at best, and more likely, is simply fanciful.”

Trump, Edelman wrote, “criticized the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s decision to drop the case in the most virulent terms; demanded that the government reinstate the prosecution, in part because of Mr. Hearn’s political activity and the identity of one of his lawyers; and publicly considered firing the United States Attorney as a result of the dismissal. »

Hearn, Edelman wrote, “faces the unique possibility that the government will revive this case – a case he has already declared without merit – based on political pressure exerted by the President of the United States on his subordinate officers.” The government “does not have the right to retain the ability to compound the mistakes it has already made, or even threaten to do so, at Mr. Hearn’s expense,” Edelman wrote.

Trump went after Hearn because of his political donations and because one of his lawyers, Norm Eisen, is a longtime Trump critic, involved in numerous legal battles against the administration.

Eisen and Hearn’s other attorneys — Mary Dohrmann, Steve Levin and Michael Bromwich — said in a joint statement that the ruling “is a victory for the rule of law and for an innocent American seeking justice” and said the case should never have been brought in the first place.

“This is a miscarriage of justice, and what happened to Mr. Hearn is a scandal that should shock all Americans,” they wrote. “This administration chose to bring unfair charges against Mr. Hearn. It should not have the repeated opportunity to exercise the power of criminal prosecution against someone who should never have been prosecuted. Today’s decision protects Mr. Hearn from this threat, allowing him to move forward with his life as he deserves.”

Pirro’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Hearn’s lawyers and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia clashed in court last month over whether the Reflecting Pool case should be dismissed with prejudice, meaning prosecutors could not bring another case against him. At the center of much of the discussion: Donald Trump’s pressure campaign on Pirro’s office and his decision to tie his desire for prosecution to the political beliefs of Hearn and one of his lawyers, Norm Eisen.

Pirro’s office dropped the case in late July after evidence showed the area was already damaged, and Hearn’s team decided to bar the office from bringing another case in August.

At an independent press conference last month, Pirro refused to answer several questions from reporters about his handling of the Reflecting Pool matter.

Pirro’s office wanted to maintain its ability to present a moot case, even though its own evidence — that the section of the reflecting pool Hearn allegedly hit was already damaged, and that they can’t prove more than $1,000 in damage — would make another criminal case impossible.

“What future prosecutions could even take place?” » Edelman asked the audience.

“That I don’t know,” said Michael Spence, a career official in the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia.

“Give me an example of one possible thing that could happen” to change the fundamentally flawed case, the judge asked. “Even in theory, what could be?”

Spence admitted he didn’t have a satisfactory answer. He added that the U.S. Attorney’s Office has not conducted any investigation into Hearn “to date” but that could change.

Edelman pointed out that it would be quite difficult to find a case with circumstances similar to Hearn’s and asked Spence how he was supposed to review Trump’s statements calling for prosecution that Pirro’s office said were baseless. The president’s statements, Spence said, “speak for themselves.”

Steve Levin, Hearn’s lawyer, said prosecutors “had no case” and that the government abused its prosecutorial discretion by rushing to indict Hearn to please the president, thereby misleading the grand jury.

“That’s where bad faith comes in,” Levin said. How is Hearn supposed to trust the grand jury process, Levin asked, given that the case has already gone to trial? “Mr. Hearn has no confidence that the grand jury will do the right thing” if another case were presented, he said.

Pirro’s office, Levin argued, is trying to keep “a discredited felony charge on life support,” and that serves no public interest.

“There’s nothing that can save the case that they threw out,” Levin said. “The government has basically recognized that nothing can revive this matter. »

But Spence said the grand jury process would still protect Hearn from a bad faith prosecution.

“The government acted in good faith in this matter,” Spence argued.