Palisades fire – A federal jury in the arson case against Jonathan Rinderknecht said Thursday it could not reach a unanimous verdict after more than 13 hours of deliberations, signaling a potential hung jury and possible mistrial. The jury sent a note stating it had “people on
For a jury tasked with deciding whether Jonathan Rinderknecht set the fire that helped ignite what would become the deadliest wildfire in Los Angeles history, Thursday ended with no clean ending—just a pair of notes and a clock pushing toward a possible hung jury.
After more than 13 hours of deliberations, the federal jury told U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang at 2:30 p.m. that it could not come to a unanimous verdict. The note, read aloud by Hwang, said: “We have people on both sides that are deadset.”
Hwang. after discussing next steps with defense attorneys and prosecutors. sent the panel back a question: “Is there anything the court can do to assist in the jury’s deliberations?. For example, would an additional instruction or the rereading of any testimony help in the jury’s deliberation. Do not disclose the vote count in responding.”.
The jury returned with a brief answer. “Unfortunately we cannot reach a unanimous verdict,” they wrote in a subsequent note, read by Hwang shortly after 3:20 p.m. The jurors were then instructed to return to court at 9 a.m. Friday.
Defense attorney Steve Haney said it appeared the trial was heading to a “hung jury.”
In a follow-up note at 3:40 p.m., the jury said it could not reach a unanimous verdict on any of the three felony charges.
The case marks the 12th day of a trial in which prosecutors called more than 30 witnesses. presenting a narrative of a man—Jonathan Rinderknecht. a 30-year-old former Uber driver—who prosecutors said spiraled mentally and sought vengeance against the wealthy after hiking to a clearing overlooking Pacific Palisades. Prosecutors accused him of using a lighter to set the Lachman fire on New Year’s Day 2025.
The timeline presented in court was stark. Prosecutors said the Lachman fire smoldered underground for a week before exploding into the deadly Palisades fire. Firefighters, they said, had thought they extinguished the initial blaze and left with their equipment on Jan. 2. The secondary inferno erupted Jan. 7, 2025.
That escalation killed 12 people, destroyed 6,500 structures across the Palisades and Malibu, and cost billions in damage and insurance claims, prosecutors said.
Rinderknecht, who has been in federal custody since October, is on trial for destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce, and timber set afire.
At trial, his defense attempted to pry holes in the prosecution’s account of how the fire began. Haney told jurors in his closing argument Tuesday that “The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the lighter ignited the fire. because that’s what they claim happened here.” He added: “They don’t have any evidence at all that Jonathan started a fire on that hill with a lighter.”.
Haney argued jurors did not know exactly when the Lachman fire ignited—only that it was first spotted at 12:12 a.m.—which he said could mean it started before Rinderknecht reached the top of the hill. He also argued the scene of the Lachman fire was not secured in a way that preserved evidence that could have exonerated his client. saying that such evidence likely was lost during fire suppression efforts used on the Palisades fire.
The prosecution painted a different picture, emphasizing that investigators found indicators they said tied Rinderknecht to the specific origin area. Assistant U.S. Atty. Danbee C. Kim said the remaining data and fire pattern indicators were “extremely incriminating” for Rinderknecht.
Kim pointed to what she described as his proximity and access: “He was the only one there and he was in the specific origin area when the fire was visible from up to five miles away,” she told the jury. She also argued: “there was no evidence of any fireworks in the area that night.”
During trial testimony, defense witnesses described what they believed other people might have been doing near the area after the fire began. A Palisades resident testified that he saw several teens leaving the hill behind his house after the fire started, acting “boastful.”
A Los Angeles firefighter testified that he saw flashes of light and heard loud noises that sounded like fireworks around midnight near the neighborhood closest to where the blaze sparked.
A defense expert told jurors that the most likely cause of the blaze was fireworks and cast doubt on exactly where it originated.
Prosecutors, however, focused on the events surrounding Rinderknecht’s movements that night, starting with his work as an Uber driver. Both defense and prosecutors told the jury that Rinderknecht was working on New Year’s Eve. dropping off his last passenger around 11:35 p.m. in a neighborhood close to where the fire began.
Assistant U.S. Atty. Matt O’Brien said Rinderknecht knew the area well because he had lived there a few years earlier. before moving to a small apartment in North Hollywood where “his life started to deteriorate.” O’Brien told jurors: “You’ll hear that in 2024. defendant was lonely with no real friends.” He said Rinderknecht lived by himself and was withdrawn.
O’Brien described prosecutors’ motive theory as resentment and isolation turning into action. Rinderknecht, he told the jury, wanted “revenge against society, because he blamed society for all his troubles.”
On New Year’s Eve. O’Brien said Rinderknecht canceled his next Uber ride and instead drove to a small parking lot at the edge of the neighborhood. a block from where he had lived. O’Brien said Rinderknecht then used his phone flashlight to walk up a trail to a small clearing at the top of the hill called Hidden Buddha.
Once there. O’Brien told jurors. Rinderknecht listened to a French rap song whose music video features someone lighting a joint and also burning cash. Around 12:12 a.m. within seconds of the fire being detected on a surveillance camera. O’Brien said Rinderknecht attempted to call 911. but the call failed.
O’Brien told the court that location data from Rinderknecht’s phone showed that during one of his attempts to call 911, he was within 30 feet of the fire.
O’Brien also said Rinderknecht admitted to investigators that he brought a lighter with him up to the clearing. O’Brien told jurors that investigators asked Rinderknecht why someone might commit arson in Pacific Palisades. and that Rinderknecht answered that it would be out of resentment of the rich enjoying their money as “we’re basically being enslaved by them.”.
The prosecution also introduced what it said was a glimpse of his mindset before the fire. O’Brien said Rinderknecht had previously asked ChatGPT to create images for him of a fire and expressed his anger “about wealthy people and his anger about society.”
Defense attorneys disputed parts of the physical evidence and the investigators’ findings. The defense said investigators “found no accelerants, they found no incendiary devices that could be linked to my client.”
In closing, Haney argued that what jurors heard from Rinderknecht’s conduct was the opposite of arson. He said his client immediately called 911 after he saw the fire. the first of more than a dozen 911 calls he would make. When Rinderknecht walked down the hill and finally reached an operator around 12:17 a.m., Haney said, Rinderknecht “pleaded for help.”.
Haney played a 911 call for the jury in which Rinderknecht said: “There’s a fire, there’s a fire.” Haney then told jurors: “The evidence is going to show it’s not the voice and actions of a man who started a fire,” adding, “it’s the voice and actions of a man trying to stop a fire.”
By late Thursday afternoon, the jury’s inability to reach unanimity brought those competing portrayals to a blunt question—whether enough jurors believed the prosecution had met its burden beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether others remained unconvinced.
Now, with the panel set to return at 9 a.m. Friday, the trial’s next day will determine whether deliberations continue toward agreement—or whether the deadlock becomes the kind that forces the court to consider a different outcome.
Palisades fire arson trial Jonathan Rinderknecht hung jury mistrial Anne Hwang Hidden Buddha Lachman fire Uber driver