DOJ Moves to Dismiss Felony Charge Against Olympic Canoeist, Cites Contractor Defect

A federal prosecution that reached the felony stage is now being reversed by the government's own filing, raising questions about pre-charge evidentiary standards at the DC US Attorney's Office.

Washington, DC — The US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia filed a motion on July 31, 2026 to dismiss a felony destruction-of-property charge against former Olympic canoeist David Hearn, acknowledging in the court filing that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was "the result of flawed installation by the contractor" rather than vandalism by Hearn, according to reporting citing the court document (US District Court for the District of Columbia, motion filed July 31, 2026).

Hearn had pleaded not guilty earlier in July 2026 to one felony count of destruction of property under 18 U.S.C. § 1361, stemming from an alleged June 19, 2026 incident at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. The charge carried potential penalties including fines and imprisonment. The not-guilty plea is reflected in the court docket for that proceeding.

US Attorney Jeanine Pirro, who was nominated by President Trump and confirmed to lead the DC office, signed the dismissal motion. The filing concedes that the government's original theory — that Hearn caused the damage — was undermined by evidence that the pool's condition resulted from a contractor's installation error. The specific contractor involved and the nature of the installation defect are not identified in publicly available reporting as of this date; the full court filing would contain those details.

The case originated approximately six weeks before the dismissal motion. It is not publicly known from available records what investigative steps were taken before Hearn was charged, what physical evidence was presented to a grand jury if one was convened, or when the contractor-defect finding was first identified by investigators. The underlying contract for pool maintenance or construction work at the Lincoln Memorial would be searchable through USASpending.gov under the National Park Service's procurement records and could identify the responsible contractor and contract terms.

What remains unknown: the identity and federal contract number of the contractor whose installation is cited in the dismissal motion; whether Hearn has filed or intends to file any civil claim arising from the prosecution; and whether the DC US Attorney's Office has opened a review of pre-charge procedures in the case. The court docket for this matter, accessible through PACER, would reflect any subsequent filings, including a judge's order granting or denying the dismissal.