judge bars – In the Palisades fire trial, a federal judge barred prosecutors from presenting testimony that defendant Jonathan Rinderknecht once burned a Bible and threatened to burn down his sister’s house in Florida, warning the defense attorney to tighten questioning af
The moment the defense pushed on what the ATF agent did—or didn’t—find on the devices. the courtroom’s temperature shifted. For a defendant accused of igniting a fire that killed people, the fight wasn’t only about the blaze itself. It was about what the jury would be allowed to hear when it comes to alleged prior behavior.
On Friday. a federal judge declined to allow testimony that Jonathan Rinderknecht. on trial for the Palisades fire. had at one point burned a Bible and threatened to burn down his sister’s house. U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang said the prior acts were not direct evidence of the charges in the case. and she warned the defense attorney “to tighten up your questioning.”.
Rinderknecht is charged with starting the Lachman fire, which smoldered underground for a week before exploding into the deadly Palisades fire on Jan. 7, 2025. If convicted, he faces up to 45 years in prison.
Before the trial began this week, Hwang ruled that prosecutors could not introduce those prior acts because they were prejudicial. On Friday, however, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Williams argued that the defense attorney had opened the door the day before.
The dispute centered on Thursday’s cross-examination of U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Agent Michael Montevidoni. During questioning, defense attorney Steve Haney emphasized that his client never asked ChatGPT for advice on plotting a fire. Haney pressed the agent repeatedly with questions about whether investigators found any signs of arson searching or purchases of fire-starting materials.
“You never found any searches in any of the devices regarding arson, right?” Haney asked. He continued. asking whether there were any “internet searches for deliberately starting a fire. ” any searches “on what type of incendiary device. lighter. torch. flare. might be better used to start a fire. ” and whether there were “Never found any purchases of fire-starting materials?” Over and over again. Montevidoni answered no.
Williams argued that the defense’s line of questioning suggested to jurors that Rinderknecht had never expressed a desire to commit arson. The prosecutor said that suggestion was wrong.
“Clearly threatening to burn someone’s house down does relate to the crime of arson,” Williams said. He added that it was “exactly what happened” when Rinderknecht allegedly threatened to burn down his sister’s home in Florida.
Williams told the judge Haney’s questioning amounted to an attack on the agent’s credibility. The effect on the jury, Williams said, was that the agent “didn’t find any of this evidence.”
Haney objected to the framing. He argued that the act described in the ChatGPT prompts—burning a Bible—was not arson. “The act of burning a Bible, your Bible, which is what was indicated in the ChatGPT prompts is not arson,” Haney said. “It was an expression of religious protest, that’s not arson.”
Haney also argued the timing of the alleged threat mattered. He said Rinderknecht’s remarks about burning down his sister’s home came five months after the Lachman fire. during a family argument. “I don’t believe the door was opened,” Haney said. “I believe the line of questioning was clear. It was entirely a line of questioning with respect to his prompts and his searches on his online devices.”.
Hwang ruled against allowing that testimony to come in. She said she had serious concerns about what the jury might take from the defense questioning.
“I’m concerned that there’s an insinuation or an impression that there is no evidence of your client ever purposely setting a fire to anything. Because that is not accurate,” Hwang said.
Then she drew a clear boundary for the defense going forward. “I’m going to be as clear as possible … you need to tighten up your questioning,” Hwang warned. “To be clear, you are not permitted to argue in closing that Mr. Rinderknecht has no history of burning things or threatening to burn things.”
The fight in court came down to a narrow procedural point with high stakes for how the jury understands intent: whether questions about what the agent found online inevitably suggested there was no deliberate effort to set fires—an impression the judge said was not accurate.
Palisades fire trial Jonathan Rinderknecht Anne Hwang ATF agent Michael Montevidoni Lachman fire arson threat ChatGPT prompts Steve Haney Mark Williams