Palisades Fire arson suspect goes on trial for second time

Federal prosecutors failed to get a conviction during the first trial in June, with 10 out of 12 jurors left unconvinced Jonathan Rinderknecht was guilty of arson.LOS ANGELES (CN) — The man federal prosecutors accuse of starting a brush fire in the early hours of Jan. 1, 2025, that six days later erupted into the devastating Palisades Fire went on trial for a second time Wednesday after a jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict the first time around.Jonathan Rinderknecht, 30, is charged with two counts of arson. The government argues the Palisades Fire, which destroyed thousands of homes in the affluent Los Angeles neighborhood overlooking the Pacific Ocean, was a so-called holdover from the fire they say Rinderknecht ignited on a hillside near where he had previously lived with a former romantic partner.Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew O’Brien told the jury in his opening statement that Rinderknecht was often very angry and was working as an Uber driver that New Year’s Eve. After dropping a passenger in the Palisades shortly before midnight, he parked his car near a trailhead above the houses and hiked up to the “Little Buddha” clearing, where, according to the prosecutor, Rinderknecht had spent a lot of time with his ex.About 12 minutes after midnight, a nearby surveillance camera captured a fire on the hillside near the clearing while Rinderknecht’s car was still parked below. At the same time, Rinderknecht started calling 911 from a gully a little below the clearing where, O’Brien said, he had ignited the dry brush with a grill lighter.“It wasn’t an accident,” O’Brien told the jurors. “It was set intentionally.”It’s not uncommon for an arsonist to call emergency services, he said, because some of them like to watch firefighters battle the blaze they set. Since 911 calls pinpoint the caller’s location even when the call doesn’t go through, investigators knew exactly where Rinderknecht was each time he called.The location data show Rinderknecht repeatedly dialing 911 while descending the trail back to his car until he had reception again and spoke to an operator. He also started recording himself making the emergency calls, presumably to create an alibi, the prosecutor said.At the same time, he asked ChatGPT, “Are you at fault if a fire is a lit because of your cigarettes?” The chatbot told him he was.According to O’Brien, this was an attempt to create an alternative scenario in which he accidentally started the fire.The fire department had already been alerted by others before Rinderknecht got through to them. He started to drive away from the neighborhood, but when the fire engines passed him going the other way, he turned around, then back to the fire, and remained there for an hour and a half.The brush fire was quickly put out, but flames continued to smolder underground among the roots of the vegetation, O’Brien told the jury. Six days later, when extreme Santa Ana winds pummeled Southern California, the burning embers underground were stirred back to life, and the Palisades Fire broke out.Rinderknecht’s attorney, Steven Haney, said in his opening statement that no physical evidence, witnesses or surveillance camera footage connected his client to the start of the Jan. 1 Lachman Fire.“You’re going to be the gatekeepers of common sense,” he told the jurors.The attorney argued the prosecution waited until nine months after charging Rinderknecht to test whether the grill lighter they found in Rinderknecht’s car could have set fire to brushes near the Little Buddha clearing. He showed a video of this test in court in which the flames set by the lighter in similar vegetation continued to go out.“That fire couldn’t get beyond a baking pan,” he said.As during the first trial last June, Haney told the jury it was more likely that the Jan. 1 fire was caused by New Year’s Eve fireworks, and defense witnesses would testify that they had heard fireworks in the area around midnight. He also said it was disputable his client was the only person in the area at the time.However, the prosecution pointed to Rinderknecht’s own statements: When investigators interviewed him in the weeks after the fire, he said he was alone at the clearing around midnight, and it was clear and calm.Also, as during the first trial, Haney argued in his opening statement that Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigators didn’t arrive at the scene and examine the cause of the Jan. 1 fire until after the Palisades Fire had torn through the area and had been left open to hikers and sightseers, thereby obliterating any reliable evidence of how the first fire might have started.Haney’s animated advocacy almost got Rinderknecht acquitted during the first trial, with only two of the 12 jurors convinced he was guilty.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads