Justiça · Caso da Reflecting PoolJuiz impede retomada da acusação contra David Hearn por caso da Reflecting Pool após pressão de TrumpEscrito 2 de outubro de 2026 às 16:19 UTCAssistirTranscrição0:09On August 4th, we reported prosecutors sought dismissal.0:12Now a judge has barred refiling.0:14David Hearn faced a felony charge carrying up to 10 years in prison over a pool0:18lining that failed because of botched installation.0:20Why did ending a case the government considered meritless require a permanent0:24judicial bar?0:25President Donald Trump demanded another prosecution after his own administration0:29concluded the accusation did not stand up.0:31That pressure left Hearn exposed to a renewed case, even though prosecutors0:35acknowledged they were no longer investigating.0:37The October 1 ruling closes that opening.0:39Two words make the protection permanent.0:42With prejudice.0:43D.C.0:43Superior Court Judge Todd E.0:45Edelman's 26-page order bars prosecutors from bringing the same reflecting pool0:49destruction of property charge again.0:51It is not a jury acquittal and it does not give Hearn blanket immunity from0:55unrelated future prosecutions, but prosecutors cannot simply reopen this abandoned0:59charge.1:00The new ruling is different from the 20-page government filing in our August report.1:05That earlier document explained the prosecution's reversal, it did not yet guarantee1:08that the charge could never return.1:10Hearn was charged under local DC law, not with a federal vandalism offense.1:14Federal prosecutors brought the case, and the allegedly damaged property belonged to1:18the United States, but the charge was one felony count under D.C.1:21Code Section 22-303 in DC Superior Court, not U.S.1:26District Court.1:27The U.S.1:27Attorney for the district prosecutes many local offenses.1:30The indictment alleged malicious injury to the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pools1:34lining and damage of at least $1,000, the alleged felony threshold.1:38That was an accusation, not an established valuation of damage Hearn caused.1:42No conviction or prison sentence was imposed.1:45The lining was peeling before Hearn was arrested.1:48It began failing almost immediately after completion, and a National Park Service1:52engineer had been alerted by June 9th.1:54Hearn's arrest came June 19th.1:56Prosecutors accused him of pulling at already peeling material.2:00The material he touched was subsequently described as perimeter overspray of minimal2:04value.2:04A grand jury indicted Hearn on July 2, and U.S.2:07Attorney Janine Pirow announced the indictment that day.2:10He was arraigned July 9th and pleaded not guilty.2:13Interior Department and National Park Service information then dismantled the2:17criminal premise.2:18The widespread peeling resulted from Atlantic Industrial Coding's flawed2:21installation and a rush to finish before America 250 events around Independence Day.2:26The government concluded that no crime had occurred and that Hearn's actions had no2:30effect on the pool's value.2:32It would not have sought the indictment had it possessed the contractor information2:35earlier.2:35This was not a reduction from a large criminal damage bill to a smaller one.2:39The government acknowledged that the accusation itself lacked merit.2:42The findings establish installation failure and haste, but they do not provide a2:47complete technical specification of every defective installation step.2:50The publicly funded renovation involved work near $16 million, but that is not a2:55loss attributable to Hearn.2:57The coding award was reported at about $13.1 million in May, roughly3:02$14.2 million by June 16th, more than 14.65 million by June 19th.3:09and about 14.7 million in a later June contract summary.3:12A separate Greenwater Solutions algae and filtration award was about $1.7 million.3:18Together, the components put the reported work near $16 million.3:21The $14 million shorthand refers to the coding award, not another project or an3:26additional cost.3:27These differently dated, partly rounded figures are not an audited final3:30expenditure, and none is a criminal damage bill established against Hearn.3:34Prosecutors wanted to stop the case while keeping the option to bring it back.3:38Pirot's office filed its dismissal motion July 31 at 4.5 p.m.3:43requesting dismissal without prejudice.3:45On August 6, Edelman dismissed the charge but deferred whether that dismissal would3:49be permanent.3:50The government's August 18 reply still opposed a permanent bar.3:54Further briefing and a September 4 hearing led to the October 1st decision.3:58The late July request, August dismissal, and October finality are different stages,4:02not conflicting accounts.4:04A September 11 trial readiness date appeared on the earlier motions caption.4:08That does not establish that the proceeding occurred or that a trial remained4:11pending after dismissal.4:13Three other defendants' cases were abandoned separately.4:15Early August filings, around August 3, ended misdemeanor destruction of property4:20prosecutions against Justin Coreno, Sophie Dennison Gibby, and Cameron Tears.4:25Their allegations concerned damage below $1,000.4:28Four people in all had cases prosecutors sought to drop.4:31But the October 1st permanent dismissal order applies to Hearn alone.4:34Trump demanded that Pirot revisit the case while attacking Hearn's political4:39associations and legal representation.4:41His August 7th demand linked renewed prosecution to Hearn's involvement with Act4:45Blue and representation by Norm Eisen and Crewe.4:48His allegations of wrongdoing against those people and organizations were4:51accusations, not established findings.4:54That demand followed an August 1 rejection of his administration's explanation.4:59Trump insisted that vandals caused the major damage despite contractor difficulties.5:03On August 3rd, he attacked Pirot for backing down.5:06On August 16th, he again insisted the pool had been vandalized and attacked the5:09legal competence of people who disagreed.5:11These were truth social remarks, not confirmed original ex posts.5:15His assertions did not establish vandalism or overcome the government's contrary5:19evidence.5:19Presidential pressure could revive a case the government had already declared5:23meritless.5:24That is why simply dropping the charge was not enough.5:27Edelman's decision addressed the risk that subordinate prosecutors would bring it5:30back because the president wanted them to, rather than because new evidence5:34justified it.5:35Trump had demanded renewed prosecution partly over Hearn's political activity and5:39lawyer and publicly entertained firing the U.S.5:42Attorney.5:43The permanent bar answers that risk.5:45The evidence did not support the accusation.5:48The president's demands nevertheless created a possibility of prosecution.5:51The order distinguishes a renewed case justified by evidence from one driven by5:56political pressure.5:57Hearn, 67, is the former U.S.5:59canoeist known as Davey Hearn.6:01He competed in men's C1 canoe slalom at the 1992, 1996, and 2000 Olympics.6:07finishing eleventh, ninth, and twelfth.6:09He did not win an Olympic medal, but won individual World Championship gold in 19856:14and 1995.6:16His athletic record explains the attention, not the legal protection.6:19The stakes were a felony accusation, possible imprisonment and having to defend the6:24same abandoned charge again.6:25No appeal or dated next court proceeding was announced in the October Forum to 26:29coverage.6:30That does not guarantee that a challenge can never be attempted.6:33Pierrot's office did not immediately respond to inquiries about the permanent6:37dismissal.6:38The operative order bars refiling this charge.6:40Hearn wants apologies from both Piro and Trump.6:43On October 2nd, he expressed little expectation that the President would apologize.6:47No apology had been established.Ler o artigoCronologia da históriaHeyDexO vídeo curto ↗
