A felony vandalism case announced with dramatic certainty by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro is now facing possible dismissal after defense lawyers discovered that the most important physical evidence no longer exists.

David Hearn, a 67-year-old three-time Olympian, was indicted on July 2 for allegedly damaging the newly installed liner of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Pirro publicly accused him of using his bare hands to forcefully rip up approximately two square feet of the material.

But when Hearn’s attorneys were taken to the precise location of the alleged crime, they found something extraordinary.

The entire section was missing.

“This entire section of the pool liner is missing,” a sworn declaration attached to Hearn’s motion to dismiss states.

The discovery could create a devastating problem for prosecutors.

Hearn has maintained that he did not damage the liner. He says he merely touched a section that had already become detached and immediately released it after a National Park Service employee told him to stop.

The missing material might have helped determine which version was true.

Instead, defense attorneys argue, the government allowed the evidence to disappear after receiving a direct written demand to preserve it.

“The government’s failure to preserve this evidence, in the face of an express demand no less, has destroyed Mr. Hearn’s ability to collect evidence material to his defense,” the filing states.

“Dismissal is the only appropriate remedy.”

The dispute began on June 19, when Hearn allegedly approached the drained Reflecting Pool and touched its newly installed liner.

Prosecutors claim National Park employees witnessed him pulling the material up with both hands.

Pirro described the conduct in forceful terms during a July 2 press conference announcing the indictment.

“National Park employees observed Hearn actually forcefully and violently pulling up and removing the bottom liner with both hands,” she said.

She also emphasized that Hearn allegedly damaged the pool using only his “bare hands.”

That detail prompted an obvious question from a reporter.

If a 67-year-old man could tear up the liner without a tool, was the material already loose or damaged before he touched it?

Pirro rejected the suggestion.

“Oh, he damaged it,” she replied. “He damaged the pool.”

Her statement left little room for uncertainty.

The government had identified the suspect.

It had identified the location.

It claimed witnesses saw the damage occur.

And it had charged Hearn with felony destruction of property.

But the defense now argues that photographs included in the government’s own investigation contradict that confident narrative.

According to the motion, images submitted with the search warrant application show damage to the liner before Hearn touched it.

Hearn also reportedly took his own photograph before making contact with the material.

“Both images show identical damage to the relevant area of the liner before Mr. Hearn ever touched it,” the defense filing states.

That claim has not yet been resolved by the court.

Prosecutors may challenge the interpretation of the photographs, argue that Hearn worsened existing damage or rely on witness testimony to establish what happened.

But the physical liner itself could have provided crucial evidence about whether the damage was old, new or expanded during the encounter.

It can no longer be inspected.

On July 8, Hearn’s attorneys sent the government a formal written demand to preserve all physical evidence connected to the case.

According to the motion, officials fenced off the pool that same day and began draining it again for repairs.

Eight days later, on July 16, defense lawyers were allowed to inspect the scene with government assistance.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Reddington accompanied them and identified the exact location where Hearn allegedly damaged the liner.

The relevant section had been removed.

That sequence is central to the defense request for dismissal.

Evidence can sometimes be lost or destroyed during routine repairs without misconduct. Not every failure to preserve material automatically ends a criminal case.

Courts typically consider whether the evidence was potentially useful or clearly exculpatory, whether officials acted in bad faith and how severely the loss prejudiced the defendant.

Hearn’s lawyers argue that the prejudice is overwhelming.

Their client faces a felony charge based on alleged physical damage.

The government controlled the site.

The defense specifically demanded preservation.

And the precise object needed to test the prosecution’s theory is now unavailable.

Without the liner, Hearn’s experts cannot examine tear patterns, material weakness, prior separation or evidence of recent force.

They cannot determine whether the section was already detached.

They cannot compare the physical damage with the government’s description.

They must instead rely on photographs selected during the investigation and testimony from government witnesses.

The defense says that imbalance makes a fair trial impossible.

The controversy also raises questions about the way Pirro publicly presented the case.

Prosecutors are permitted to announce indictments and explain charges.

An indictment, however, is an accusation—not proof of guilt.

Pirro’s emphatic statements suggested that the central facts were already settled.

She did not describe the liner as potentially damaged beforehand.

She did not acknowledge uncertainty.

She declared that Hearn damaged the pool.

If the defense photographs do show an identical defect before Hearn touched the material, that certainty may now look premature.

The case has attracted additional attention because of the severity of the charge.

Hearn was not issued a citation for minor interference with government property.

He was indicted on a felony count.

That exposes him to far more serious legal, financial and reputational consequences.

The government therefore carries a significant obligation to preserve evidence that could support innocence as carefully as evidence supporting guilt.

Hearn’s status as a three-time Olympian does not determine whether he committed the alleged offense.

Nor should his age excuse intentional damage if prosecutors can prove it.

But neither fame nor a high-profile press conference lowers the government’s burden of proof.

The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Hearn caused the damage alleged in the indictment.

If the liner was already torn, that task becomes more complicated.

If the relevant section was removed after a preservation request, the court must decide whether the defense has been denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge the accusation.

Judge Todd Edelman of D.C. Superior Court will now consider the dismissal motion filed on July 16.

Possible outcomes could include denial of the motion, additional evidence hearings, sanctions, limits on prosecution arguments or dismissal of the case.

The supplied report does not include a response from Pirro’s office to the defense filing.

Prosecutors may argue that photographs, witness accounts and other evidence remain sufficient.

They may also explain when the liner was removed, who authorized the work and whether officials knew the relevant section would be destroyed.

Those answers could determine whether the missing evidence was an unfortunate repair decision or a more serious failure.

For now, the contradiction is striking.

Pirro stood before cameras and insisted the case was clear.

Her prosecutor later escorted defense attorneys to the alleged crime scene.

When they arrived, the evidence at the center of the felony charge was gone.

A case built around two square feet of damaged material may now collapse because the government failed to preserve those same two square feet.