A federal judge indicated on Thursday that jurors in the upcoming retrial of Jonathan Rinderknecht, accused of starting a fire that led to the devastating Palisades blaze, will likely be barred from considering whether the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) adequately suppressed the initial fire. The retrial is set to begin on November 2 in a federal court.
U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang tentatively sided with prosecutors’ request to instruct the jury to disregard evidence regarding the fire department’s actions following the initial blaze, although she deferred a final ruling until the trial is underway. This move stems from concerns about the potential impact of such evidence on jurors’ decisions.
The issue came to prominence during Rinderknecht’s first trial earlier this year, in which a juror questioned why he alone was held responsible when the fire reignited days after firefighters left the scene. Haney, Rinderknecht’s attorney, was prohibited from introducing claims of LAFD negligence. The initial trial ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked 10-2 in favor of acquittal in June.
Rinderknecht, 30, remains in federal custody and has pleaded not guilty to revised charges related to the Jan. 1, 2025 Lachman fire, which prosecutors say smoldered underground before flaring into the Palisades fire on Jan. 7. The second count seeks to hold him accountable for both the Lachman and Palisades fires, though a third charge of setting timber afire was dropped in the new indictment.
The January 7 fire proved deadly and destructive, claiming 12 lives and destroying roughly 6,500 structures across Pacific Palisades and Malibu, causing billions in damage and insurance claims. In a parallel civil lawsuit against the city and state, firefighting crews have testified about communication breakdowns and questionable decisions that led to firefighters leaving the initial fire’s perimeter prematurely. For instance, hoses were rolled up despite concerns that the fire was not fully extinguished, and hot embers were found days later, raising questions about whether the suppression effort was sufficient.
Prosecutors have argued that jurors’ post-trial comments indicated the fire department’s response was already factored into their deliberations during the first trial and that excluding such evidence was crucial to preventing another mistrial. Judge Hwang acknowledged the complexity of distinguishing between the fire department’s overall response and evidence about the fire’s continuation underground.
Speaking after the hearing, defense attorney Steve Haney expressed confidence in the upcoming trial, stating it would involve largely the same evidence as the first but with additional material favorable to the defense. He highlighted that a prosecution experiment testing the lighter believed to have started the fire would feature prominently, criticizing the prosecution for delaying this test until nearly a year after the fire occurred.
During the previous trial, Haney presented witnesses who challenged the prosecution’s narrative, including a local resident who reported seeing teenagers acting suspiciously near the fire’s origin and a firefighter who heard fireworks near the fire’s starting point. A defense expert suggested fireworks might have caused the blaze and questioned the exact location where it began.
Haney conveyed that Rinderknecht remains positive heading into the new proceedings. “He’s in a good frame of mind. I am too,” Haney said. “We’re all looking forward to the second trial.”