...
By Khaleda Rahman and Gabe Whisnant
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A federal judge declared a mistrial Friday in the arson case against a man accused of sparking the deadly 2025 Palisades Fire in Los Angeles after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict, prompting federal prosecutors to immediately vow to retry the case.
Ten of the 12 jurors said Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29, should be acquitted. Judge Anne Hwang scheduled a retrial for October 19 and ordered him held in custody until then.
“This is a big victory, and it feels so unfair that, given the circumstances, the government maintains my son in jail,” said his father, Joel Rinderknecht.
Read More on News
The deadlock comes after weeks of testimony over one of the most destructive wildfires in California history, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes across Pacific Palisades and Malibu.
Bill Essayli, U.S. Attorney for the central district of California, wrote on X after the mistrial, "The evidence is strong that Jonathan Rinderknecht is responsible for igniting the fire on January 1, 2025, which eventually became the Palisades fire. We fully intend to retry this case before a new jury and obtain guilty verdicts on all charged counts,"
...
Why the Palisades Fire Trial Verdict Is About More Than Just Blame
The trial took an unusual turn Thursday, raising the prospect of a mistrial when the jury appeared to reverse course, having indicated it had reached a unanimous verdict.
Crucially, the outcome of the trial, apart from deciding blame, could determine who can be sued over damage caused by the fire.
Rinderknecht, a former Uber driver, pleaded not guilty to starting the deadly 2025 Palisades Fire. He was charged with arson, malicious destruction by means of a fire and timber set aflame.
Prosecutors say Rinderknecht started a fire on January 1, 2025, that smoldered underground before reigniting nearly a week later. The fire burned through the hillside neighborhoods of Pacific Palisades and Malibu, killing 12 people and destroying more than 17,000 homes and buildings. It caused more than $50 billion in damage to residential properties, according to a report from real estate brokerage Redfin last year.
A verdict in Rinderknecht’s trial at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in downtown Los Angeles was expected to be read out on Thursday after the jury said they had come to a unanimous verdict.
But less than 30 minutes later, a subsequent note to the judge indicated that jurors were at a standstill and unsure how to proceed. It was not immediately clear why the jury initially indicated it had reached a decision, but some suggested it may have been a box-checking error.
Jurors were asked to return to court on Friday morning, and a mistrial was declared.
Judge Anne Hwang declared the mistrial after being informed the jury was irreparably split, with 10 jurors favoring acquittal and two backing conviction on three federal charges: arson, malicious destruction by means of fire and timber set aflame.
“The court finds there is a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial because the jury is deadlocked,” Hwang said.
Jurors had deliberated for roughly 13 hours over two days and indicated in a note that further discussion would not change the outcome. “We have people on both sides that are dead set, unwavering and unwilling to change their opinion,” the jury wrote.
Prosecutors had asked the judge to instruct jurors to continue deliberating, but Hwang declined, citing a risk of coercion given the firm split across all counts.
Defense attorney Steve Haney said the breakdown — heavily favoring acquittal — was a “pretty resounding indication” of his client’s innocence, and maintained that the government failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case is being closely watched, but for some fire victims, the stakes are higher than determining whether Rinderknecht is to blame for causing the fire.
Why the Stakes Are Higher for Some
Many fire victims have sued the city over the fire and are relying on payouts to rebuild their homes, according to Jim Cragg, the president of the Pacific Palisades Long Term Recovery Group.
"We are angry and we want someone to blame," Cragg told NBC Los Angeles.
But he added that some are "terrified" by the implications of Rinderknecht being found guilty because it could mean the city of Los Angeles and other entities cannot be found civilly liable.
"A lot of people are relying on the lawsuits and the payouts from those lawsuits to be able to rebuild their homes," Cragg said. "And if the government is able to escape liability and not have to pay out on those lawsuits for those agencies making mistakes, they could possibly do that by pinning this on an arsonist. And so a lot of people are terrified of this going in the direction of an arsonist being found guilty."
Newsweek has contacted Cragg for further comment via email.
Rinderknecht’s trial, which began on June 8, featured lengthy testimony from investigators, experts and witnesses from surrounding areas.
Although the government lacked direct evidence that Rinderknecht sparked the first fire, they placed him in the area and showed that he was angry and erratic on the night of the blaze. They said a potential motive was his frustration with the rich and powerful.
But Rinderknecht’s defense has argued that the blaze’s cause was more likely to be fireworks.
...
Fire Victims Sue City
Thousands of residents and business owners have filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles and other entities over property loss and other damages suffered during the deadly fire.
After Rinderknecht’s arrest last October, attorneys representing the fire victims filed a master complaint against the city, the state of California and other defendants, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, California Department of Parks and Recreation and Southern California Edison are responsible for the harms residents suffered in the fire. Lawyers for the city have denied responsibility for the losses.
Some attorneys have argued the criminal case against Rinderknecht could kill that lawsuit, though attorneys representing the fire victims have argued that it can proceed even if the fire was found to have been caused by arson.
"We never allege that the state or the city started the Palisades fire," Alexander ‘Trey’ Robertson, an attorney representing 3,300 Palisades Fire victims, told the Los Angeles Times in October.
He said the case hinges on the lack of preparations before the fire broke out and the response afterward.
Neama Rahmani, president of the L.A.-based West Coast Trial Lawyers firm, which is handling Eaton Fire cases against Southern California Edison, told Newsweek that Rinderknecht’s conviction could hinder civil lawsuits against the city of Los Angeles and state of California.
"The government entities already have broad immunity for fire claims," he said. "An arsonist will allow the defendants to argue that the criminal act was the actual cause of the loss of the homes and life, or that even if the government were to blame, the criminal act was a superseding cause that should relieve them of liability."
Fault "would also have to be apportioned" between the parties that contributed to the harm, Rahmani said, and the city and state "would argue that the lion’s share should be attributed to the convicted arsonist.
"The plaintiffs who lost their homes and loved ones want a deep pocket with the ability to pay a large judgment or settlement, not Rinderknecht who doesn't have the billions of dollars to pay for the most devastating fire in California state history."
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines