The man accused of sparking last year’s deadly Palisades Fire will be tried again this fall after his first federal arson case ended in a mistrial Friday.

Ten of the 12 jurors insisted Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29, is innocent. Judge Anne Hwang quickly set an Oct. 19 retrial date and ordered him jailed until then.

Rinderknecht has pleaded not guilty to starting one of the most destructive wildfires in California history, and feels encouraged that so many of the jurors “resoundingly found that the government’s case was not strong, and they did not have enough evidence to convict him,” defense attorney Steve Haney said.

But First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said they have strong evidence and will seek a guilty verdict in a new trial.

Prosecutors said Rinderknecht used a barbecue lighter on Jan. 1, 2025 to spark a blaze that burned undetected deep in root systems before flaring back up Jan. 7 and killing 12 people as it incinerated entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles and Malibu. Only 17 rebuilt homes in Pacific Palisades have been certified for occupancy since then.

Prosecutors never provided direct evidence that Rinderknecht started the earlier blaze. They showed jurors he was in the area when it began and presented a digital trail to indicate he was motivated by a desire to take revenge on society.

His defense said fireworks were the likely cause and that investigators had zeroed in too quickly on Rinderknecht without clear proof.

  • ruuster13@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    The article doesn’t address why it was a mistrial instead of aquittal. Maybe lack of consensus among the jurors?

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        I don’t know how the US justice system works but I thought that for it to be a mistrial there has to be some actual failure of the legal system like jurors being manipulated or threatened in some way. I’m sure if it did come out 10 to 12 in favour of conviction there wouldn’t have been a retrial.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          In the US verdicts have to be unanimous, particularly at the Federal level. (Generally at the State level, too, but there may be exceptions I dont know about.)

          So, simply having a jury not agree is grounds for a mistrial / retrial.