Former Olympian David Hearn is asking a federal court to permanently dismiss the criminal case tied to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
He argues that President Donald Trump’s recent comments have heightened concerns that prosecutors could revive the charges in the future.
David Hearn wants his Lincoln Memorial case dismissed permanently over Trump concerns
According to legal documents obtained by TMZ, Hearn has asked the court to permanently block prosecutors from reviving the charges in the future. He explained that the case was politically motivated from the beginning and had no strong evidence to back it.
The move comes after the prosecutors moved to dismiss the case without prejudice. This would allow them to remake the charges in the future. Contrarily, Hearn wants the case dismissed with prejudice, so that the charges can never be revived.
The filing references comments Trump made after interim U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro sought to dismiss the case. Trump said that Pirro had “choked”. He continued to maintain that the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was attacked by vandals. This also means that Trump wanted to dismiss claims that it was the administration’s fault.
Hearn argues that Trump’s repeated questioning and criticism of Pirro’s handling of the case can be bad for him. He believes that Trump’s comments may trigger the prosecutors to bring back the charges against him.
A dismissal without prejudice allows prosecutors to refile charges in the future. Conversely, a dismissal with prejudice means that they won’t be able to revive the charges.
Hearn argues that anything short of permanently dismissing the case would be troublesome for him. He notes that the more stretched-out the litigation is, the more his exposure to scrutiny.
Prosecutors originally accused Hearn of damaging the newly renovated liner of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in June. He denied the allegations, saying that he merely touched the spot that was already peeling.
The prosecutors later found out that the installation was faulty in itself, thus admitting to no vandalism. Hereafter, they sought immediate dismissal of the case.
TELL US – DO YOU THINK THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS DAVID HEARN’S CASE WITH PREJUDICE?
Reported by Sreemanti Sengupta on Mandatory.
