Full Breakdown
Jury Deadlocked in Federal Arson Trial Over 2025 Palisades Fire
6/26/2026, 10:16:41 PM
Deadlocked Jury in Palisades Fire Arson Trial
A federal jury in Los Angeles announced it could not reach a unanimous verdict in the case of Jonathan Rinderknecht, the 30-year-old dual French-U.S. citizen accused of igniting the 2025 Palisades Fire. After initially indicating a verdict, jurors submitted a second note reading, “We have people on both sides that are dead set, unwavering to change their opinion, we are at standstill.” U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang read the note, declined to declare a mistrial, and ordered jurors to reconvene on Friday morning.
Origins of the Palisades Fire and Alleged Arson
Prosecutors contend the blaze began as the “Lachman Fire” at 12:12 a.m. on Jan. 1, 2025, in a remote area of the Pacific Palisades Summit neighborhood. Environmental sensors recorded the ignition; fire crews believed the blaze was extinguished, but investigators say it smoldered in brush roots for six days before re-emerging on Jan. 7 as the Palisades Fire, driven by strong Santa Ana winds.
Key Players: Prosecution, Defense, and Witnesses
Assistant U.S. Attorney Danbee Kim led the government’s case, portraying Rinderknecht as motivated by “a deeply entrenched belief that the wealthy were destroying the world.” Defense attorney Steven Haney argued the evidence was circumstantial and that Rinderknecht was being scapegoated. Witnesses included Andy Leonard, owner of the Reel Inn restaurant destroyed in the fire, a veteran arson specialist who suggested fireworks as the cause, and retired Los Angeles County Sheriff’s detective Ed Nordskog, who disputed the arson classification.
Fire Impact and Legal Stakes
The Palisades Fire burned roughly 23,000–23,448 acres, destroyed about 6,500–6,800 structures, and killed 12 people, making it the third-most destructive wildfire in California history. Rinderknecht faces three federal arson counts—destruction of property by fire, arson affecting interstate commerce, and timber set afire—with a statutory range of five to 45 years in prison.
Official Statements & Court Actions
The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed the jury’s deadlock and indicated the trial will continue. Judge Hwang asked the panel whether additional instructions or a rereading of testimony would aid deliberations; the jurors responded that nothing would help. The court has not yet ruled on an Allen charge or a mistrial.
Criticism, Alternative Theories, and Expert Dispute
Haney emphasized that “you don’t convict people on fragments,” highlighting the absence of direct physical evidence such as a confirmed ignition source. Defense experts testified that fireworks were “the most obvious cause” and that the crime scene was not secured until weeks later, potentially destroying forensic clues. Nordskog asserted, “There’s no data that says it’s arson,” and questioned the reliability of the prosecution’s fire-dynamics analysis.
Conflicting Reports & Evidentiary Gaps
Prosecutors rely on cell-phone geolocation, surveillance video, and a green Bic grill lighter found in Rinderknecht’s rented car to place him at the ignition point. The defense counters that the scene was not cordoned off, that the lighter’s link to the fire is unproven, and that eyewitnesses reported fireworks. The trial thus hinges on whether the circumstantial evidence meets the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
Verbatim Quotes
- “We have people on both sides, dead set, unwavering to change their opinion, we are at standstill.” — Jury note, read by Judge Anne Hwang
- “had a deeply entrenched belief that the wealthy were destroying the world,” — Assistant U.S. Attorney Danbee Kim
- “You don't convict people on fragments.” — Defense attorney Steven Haney
- “There's no data that says it's arson,” — Retired Detective Ed Nordskog
- “That is what the evidence has proven throughout this trial, beyond a reasonable doubt," said Assistant US Attorney Danbee Kim.” — Assistant U.S. Attorney Danbee Kim
- “The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the lighter ignited the fire, because that’s what they claim happened here,” — Defense attorney Steve Haney
Next Steps in the Trial
Jurors will resume deliberations Friday. The judge may issue an Allen charge to encourage consensus or, if the deadlock persists, declare a mistrial, allowing prosecutors to seek a retrial. Both sides remain poised for further legal maneuvering as the case proceeds.
