WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice’s inspector general has declined to investigate allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the dismissed criminal case against former Olympic canoeist David Hearn, despite attorneys’ claims that government officials may have engaged in witness tampering, obstruction of justice and other wrongdoing.
According to an Oct. 21 Associated Press report, Inspector General Don R. Berthiaume determined that the allegations fell outside his office’s jurisdiction and should instead be handled by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility.
Hearn’s attorneys challenged that decision, arguing that the allegations involved potential criminal violations beyond professional misconduct and warranted an independent investigation.
Hearn, 67, a former Olympic canoeist from Bethesda, Maryland, was charged in July with allegedly damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool’s recently installed lining.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced the indictment at a July 2 news conference, accusing Hearn of tearing a section of the pool’s lining with his hands.
The prosecution was subsequently dismissed after evidence from the Department of the Interior indicated that the damage resulted from a contractor’s improper installation rather than intentional vandalism.
A District of Columbia judge later permanently dismissed the case.
Following the dismissal, Hearn’s attorneys requested investigations by the inspectors general of both the Justice and Interior departments, alleging that officials mishandled evidence and pursued criminal charges despite information undermining the accusations.
The attorneys alleged that evidence establishing Hearn’s innocence had been in the Justice Department’s possession for weeks before the prosecution was dismissed.
They also raised concerns about whether prosecutors improperly influenced witness testimony, disregarded exculpatory evidence or proceeded with the prosecution despite knowing the allegations were unsupported.
According to CBS News, Hearn’s attorneys identified changes in testimony by a key witness before the grand jury as one example of possible misconduct.
The witness initially testified that the Reflecting Pool already needed repairs and could not determine whether Hearn had caused the damage or estimate its cost.
After a 21-minute break, however, the witness returned and testified that the damage exceeded $1,000, the threshold necessary for the felony destruction-of-property charge.
Hearn’s attorneys questioned the circumstances surrounding the change in testimony and asked investigators to examine whether prosecutors improperly influenced the witness.
The attorneys also alleged potential obstruction of justice, witness tampering, subornation of perjury and violations of Hearn’s civil rights. Those allegations have not been established as findings of criminal misconduct.
In an Oct. 8 letter, Berthiaume informed Hearn’s attorneys that statutory limitations required him to refer the allegations to the Office of Professional Responsibility because they primarily concerned prosecutorial conduct.
Berthiaume explained that the referral did not constitute a determination about whether the allegations were substantiated.
The attorneys responded in an Oct. 21 letter, arguing that the allegations extended beyond questions of prosecutorial judgment and included potential criminal wrongdoing by government officials.
Among Hearn’s attorneys is Michael Bromwich, who served as the Justice Department inspector general during the Clinton administration.
The legal team argued that the inspector general’s office had the independence and investigative authority necessary to examine allegations involving senior Justice Department officials.
The dispute involves the respective responsibilities of two federal oversight offices.
The Office of Professional Responsibility, established in 1975 following the Watergate scandal, investigates allegations of professional misconduct by Justice Department attorneys involving their investigative, litigation and legal advisory responsibilities.
The inspector general investigates other categories of misconduct, including allegations involving federal law enforcement personnel.
Unlike the inspector general, who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility is appointed by the attorney general.
Hearn’s attorneys questioned whether the Office of Professional Responsibility could conduct an independent investigation involving senior Justice Department leadership.
According to the Associated Press, the attorneys argued that the office reports to the deputy attorney general and attorney general and does not face the same requirements as the inspector general to disclose its findings publicly or report them to Congress.
CBS News also reported that Hearn’s attorneys raised concerns about staffing reductions at the Office of Professional Responsibility, asserting that its workforce had declined by approximately 50% since the beginning of the Trump administration.
The attorneys argued that those reductions raised additional questions about the office’s capacity to conduct a comprehensive investigation.
The legal team also requested an examination of Pirro’s conduct during the public announcement of the charges, including whether her statements violated ethical rules.
According to the Associated Press, the U.S. attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment when the allegations were initially raised earlier in October.
When asked about the case at an unrelated news conference Oct. 21, Pirro declined to address the question and called on another reporter.
Hearn’s attorneys maintain that an inspector general investigation is necessary to determine whether officials improperly pursued the prosecution and whether criminal misconduct occurred.
Berthiaume’s decision did not resolve those allegations or determine whether government officials violated professional standards or criminal laws.
The attorneys have asked him to reconsider the referral, arguing that the allegations warrant examination by an oversight office independent of Justice Department leadership.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
