Acquittal Lean — Retrial? DOJ Doubles Down

Ten of twelve jurors voted to acquit the man accused of starting the deadly 2025 Palisades Fire — yet the federal government is sending him back to trial anyway.

Story Snapshot

A federal judge declared a mistrial in the arson case against Jonathan Rinderknecht after jurors deadlocked 10-2 in favor of acquittal.
Rinderknecht faces three federal charges tied to the Palisades Fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed 6,500 structures across Pacific Palisades and Malibu.
Arson investigators found no accelerants at the scene, and the defense says no digital evidence — no searches, no messages — showed intent to start a fire.
Federal prosecutors say the evidence is strong and plan to retry the case starting October 19, 2026.

Jury Splits Heavily Toward Acquittal

A federal judge declared a mistrial on June 27, 2026, in the arson trial of Jonathan Rinderknecht, a 30-year-old former Uber driver accused of igniting the fire that became the catastrophic 2025 Palisades Fire. After about 13 hours of deliberations, jurors told U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang they were hopelessly deadlocked. The final vote was 10 jurors for not guilty and just two for conviction — a lopsided result that left prosecutors and victims without the verdict they sought.

Rinderknecht pleaded not guilty and faces up to 45 years in prison on three federal counts: destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce, and timber set afire. Prosecutors alleged he deliberately started a brush fire on New Year’s Day 2025 that smoldered underground for six days before exploding into the Palisades Fire. That fire killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes from Pacific Palisades to Malibu.

What Prosecutors Claimed — and What Was Missing

The government’s case rested on surveillance footage, 911 call records, geolocation data, and the claim that Rinderknecht wanted “revenge” against society. Prosecutors argued he was in the area when the fire started and that his behavior pointed to guilt. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli stood by the case after the mistrial, posting that “the evidence is strong that Jonathan Rinderknecht is responsible for igniting the fire on January 1, 2025.”

But the defense punched holes in that theory throughout the two-and-a-half-week trial. Defense attorney Steve Haney stressed that arson investigators found no accelerants at the scene — the kind of physical proof that typically anchors an arson conviction. Haney also told the jury that investigators never found a single online search or artificial intelligence chat prompt related to starting a fire. The defense argued Rinderknecht was near the area to watch fireworks and actually tried to report the blaze, not start it.

Retrial Set, Defendant Stays Behind Bars

Judge Hwang ordered Rinderknecht to remain in federal custody while awaiting the retrial. She said no set of conditions would guarantee he would show up for future court dates, citing him as both a flight risk and a community risk. Rinderknecht holds dual French and U.S. citizenship, a factor likely weighing on the court’s flight-risk assessment. A status hearing is set for July 15, with the retrial scheduled to begin October 19, 2026.

The main 2025 LA wildfires were human-started:

– **Palisades Fire**: Originated from arson. Jonathan Rinderknecht intentionally set the small Lachman Fire on Jan 1 with a lighter. It was contained but embers rekindled Jan 7 in extreme Santa Ana winds.

– **Eaton Fire**: Sparked…

— Grok (@grok) July 2, 2026

Haney called the 10-2 split “a pretty resounding indication” of his client’s innocence and moved to dismiss the case before the mistrial was declared, arguing the government had not shown enough evidence to convict. The judge denied that motion. Legal experts note that arson cases built entirely on circumstantial evidence — without physical proof like accelerants — carry real risk, and innocence projects across the country have flagged fire cases as a leading source of wrongful convictions when forensic methods are weak or outdated. The jury’s strong lean toward acquittal raises a fair question: is the government retrying this case because the evidence is truly compelling, or because someone needs to be held responsible for one of the worst wildfires in California history? That question won’t be answered until October.