A guilty plea was announced Friday in a federal case against a 30-year-old former Uber driver accused of setting what could be the most devastating wildfire in Los Angeles history.
Jonathan Rinderknecht was on trial for vandalism, burning property used in interstate commerce and timber. But on Friday, the 13th day of the trial, US District Judge Anne Hwang declared a mistrial after jurors said they could not rule on any criminal charges, with a final vote of 10 to 2 for acquittal.
“The court finds that there is an obvious need to announce a false charge due to the jury’s collusion,” said Hwang.
First Asst. US Atty. Bill Essayli said on X’s social media that his office will rehear the case.
“The evidence is strong that Jonathan Rinderknecht was responsible for starting the fire on January 1, 2025, which eventually became the Palisades fire. We are fully committed to retrying this case before a new jury and obtaining guilty verdicts on all counts.”
Defense attorney Steve Haney said the jury “wasn’t convinced beyond a reasonable doubt … and it wasn’t even close.”
He said: “Ten to 2 is a strong indication of how the jury felt about this case, and we felt that way from the beginning.”
Jurors first indicated they were deadlocked Thursday afternoon, after deliberating for more than 13 hours. The jurors initially indicated that they had reached a unanimous decision, but in a follow-up paper they said they were “at a standstill” and “not sure how to proceed.”
During the trial, prosecutors called more than 30 witnesses, who painted a picture of a man who was mentally storming and wanted revenge on the rich when he rode in the open space facing the Pacific Palisades and allegedly used a lighter to start the Lachman fire on January 1, 2025.
Prosecutors say the Lachman fire smoldered underground for a week before it erupted in the fire that killed Palisades. The firefighters thought they had put out the first fire and packed up their tools for the next day. The second fire broke out on Jan. 7, 2025, killed 12 people, destroyed 6,500 properties in the Palisades and Malibu, and cost billions of dollars in damages and insurance claims.
During the trial, Rinderknecht’s attorney called several witnesses in an effort to undermine the prosecution’s theory about the fire. A resident of Palisades said he saw many young people coming out of the hill behind his house after the fire broke out, bragging. A Los Angeles firefighter testified that he saw a bright light and heard a loud explosion that sounded like fireworks in the middle of the night near a neighbor near where the blaze broke out. A defense expert told jurors that the most likely cause of the fire was fireworks and cast doubt on its origin.
“The government has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the fire started, because that’s what they say happened here,” Haney told the judge at his closing conference Tuesday. “They have absolutely no proof that Jonathan started a fire on that hill with a lamp.”
After the judge appeared dead on Thursday afternoon, Asst. US Atty. Mark Williams asked a judge Friday morning to acquit Allen, urging jurors to continue deliberating. Haney pleaded guilty, saying that “forcing the continuation of discussions in a particular teaching style … has coercive power.”
Hwang said he agreed with him about Allen’s case, but refused to go to trial without further questioning the judge.
“Given the length of this case, they haven’t been negotiating very long yet,” Williams argued. “There’s no indication right now that they can’t be deliberate and continue to discuss these issues.”
Hwang disagreed.
“In this case, the judge deliberated for 13 hours over two days, the notes are not clear and concise,” said Hwang. “The chief said the people are ‘Dead, unstable and not willing to change their opinion.'”
Hwang called the jurors for questioning after 9 a.m. One of them was crying.
“Is it your opinion that the judge cannot agree on a decision in any of these three cases,” the judge asked the striker.
“Yes,” she said.
“Is there anything the court can do to help the judges in their deliberations?”
“No,” he said.
Is there a reasonable chance that the jury would reach a unanimous verdict on any of the three counts if they were returned to the jury room for further deliberation?
“No,” he said.
