A federal judge said Thursday that jurors in the upcoming retrial of a man accused of starting a Palisades fire will not be allowed to consider whether Los Angeles firefighters adequately extinguished a blaze that prosecutors said later reignited and spread, devastating the community.
U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang tentatively granted prosecutors’ request to instruct the jury to ignore inadmissible evidence about the adequacy of the Los Angeles Fire Department’s firefighting efforts, but delayed a final decision until Nov. 2, when the new trial begins.
The issue came into focus after Jonathan Rinderknecht’s first trial, when a juror questioned why Rinderknecht was fully responsible for the Palisades fire, which broke out days after firefighters left the scene of the original fire he is accused of starting. Mr. Huang barred Lindknecht’s attorney, Steve Haney, from bringing claims of negligence against the fire department.
In June, a jury deadlocked 10-2 in favor of acquittal, leading to a shocking trial outcome. Prosecutors vowed to retry Rinderknecht and later obtained an amended indictment that narrowed one charge to focus solely on damage from the Lachman fire that began on Jan. 1, 2025, while a second charge still sought to hold him responsible for the Lachman and Palisades fires. A third arson charge in the original case has now been dropped.
Rinderknecht, 30, who has been in federal custody since a mistrial in June, has pleaded not guilty to the amended charges. Earlier this month, Hwang ordered that the first trial not be mentioned during a retrial scheduled for Nov. 2.
At Lindknecht’s first trial, prosecutors called more than 30 witnesses who painted a picture of a man who hiked to a vacant lot overlooking the Pacific Palisades and allegedly set Lachman on fire with a lighter as he was delirious and seeking revenge against the wealthy.
Prosecutors said the fire smoldering underground for a week before exploding into the deadly Palisades Fire. The secondary fire broke out on January 7, 2025, killing 12 people, destroying 6,500 structures in the Palisades and Malibu, and causing billions of dollars in damage and insurance claims.
Los Angeles firefighters testified in a civil lawsuit against the city and state about a series of communication failures and questionable decisions by superiors that led to crews leaving the area of the New Year’s Day fire prematurely.
Firefighters were ordered to roll up hose hoses despite complaints that a more thorough cleanup was needed. On January 2, a firefighter found red-hot coals crackling in the dirt as he reached for a hose. A captain warned his superiors that it was too early to pick up the hose. After receiving reports of smoke in the area on Jan. 3, crews did not visit the entire perimeter of the burn scar.
Prosecutors argued that jurors’ posttrial statements confirmed that issues with the fire department’s response “were woven into this case.”
“Had the jury never been informed that they could not consider this evidence, another trial would have been all but inevitable,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing.
Huang said Thursday she was not relying on the jurors’ statements but expressed concerns about their ability to distinguish between questions about the adequacy of firefighting efforts and evidence questioning whether the original fire was still smoldering.
After the hearing, Lindknecht’s attorney said he was not concerned about the jury instructions.
“The evidence in the second trial is essentially the same, and I think there’s some very, very strong evidence in the second trial that will undermine their theory of how the fire started,” Haney said.
Haney said he believed the second trial “will be largely similar” to the first.
“I think it’s better for the defense,” Haney said. “There will also be some evidence that will come out at trial that I think will be very helpful to the defense that we didn’t see in the first trial.”
Haney declined to elaborate on what that evidence was. Asked about another prosecution experiment, Haney said testing “will be at the heart of the second trial,” which involves the less serious experiment that prosecutors believe caused the fire.
“I don’t know why they didn’t test the lighter before charging my client, but they tested the lighter 11 months after the fire,” Haney said. “That will be a big issue in the second trial.”
During the first trial, Haney called several witnesses in an attempt to overturn the prosecution’s theory about the fire. A Palisades resident said he saw several teenagers leaving the hill behind his home and acting “boastful” after the fire. A Los Angeles firefighter testified that he saw a flash of light and heard a loud noise that sounded like fireworks around midnight near the neighborhood closest to the fire. A defense expert told jurors the most likely cause of the fire was fireworks and cast doubt on its exact origin.
Haney said his Rinderknecht “is positive and feels good about where we are.”
“He has a good attitude and so do I,” he said. “I think we’re all looking forward to the second trial.”