Last week the judge handling the trial of accused arsonist Jonathan Rinderknecht declared a mistrial in his case. Rinderknecht is a former Uber driver who is suspected of starting a Jan. 1, 2025 fire that a week later would spark into one of the most destructive wildfires in California’s history.
Jonathan Rinderknecht was on trial for destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and timber set afire. But on Friday, the 13th day of trial, U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang declared a mistrial after the jurors said they were unable to reach a verdict on any of the felony charges, with a final vote of 10 to 2 for acquittal.
“The court finds there’s a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial in this case due to a jury deadlock,” Hwang said.
First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli said on the social media platform X that his office would retry the case.
Prosecutors still think they have a case, but obviously a 10-2 vote to acquit doesn’t suggest the jury agreed.
Prosecutors made their final pitch to the jury Tuesday afternoon, arguing that Rinderknecht, 30, intentionally set the Lachman fire last New Year’s Day in a bid for vengeance against millionaires he believed were “enslaving” common people like him…
Over the course of the trial, prosecutors called more than 30 witnesses, including veteran arson investigators who told jurors they had ruled out fireworks, lightning, cigarettes and other potential instigators of the blaze — leaving only Rinderknecht, who they say admitted to bringing a lighter with him as he hiked to the Hidden Buddha clearing overlooking the Palisades, near where the blaze was first spotted just minutes into the new year…
Prosecutors dug deep into Rinderknecht’s ChatGPT logs, where he argued with the chatbot while asking it to produce artwork displaying fire and railing against the wealthy. One video played in court, filmed days after the fire, showed an emotional Rinderknecht sitting in his car wondering if he was on the verge of a “mental breakdown.”
The main problem with the case is that while Rinderknecht had motive, means and opportunity to set the fire, no one saw him do it.
Rinderknecht has acknowledged he hiked up to the area on the night of the fire, and cellphone evidence shows he placed several 911 calls reporting the flames. Kim said Rinderknecht’s phone first pinged in a small gully near where they believe the fire originated.
So now the question is whether or not he should be tried again in hopes of getting a different result. The LA Times found a few people who think it’s a waste of time.
“They don’t have the goods,” said Lisa Sweetingham, a longtime Palisades resident and journalist who attended the trial in federal court after losing her home in the fire. “Ten jurors saw that, and a lot of people in the audience saw that. They really don’t have the evidence to bring it home.”
Part of the problem with this case is that Rinderknecht did call 911 multiple times when the fire first ignited. That fire was put out and did no real damage. But a week later, when strong winds moved into the area, the fire rekindled. In theory, that should not have happened if firefighters had put the initial fire all the way out. But there’s evidence they failed to do that.
On top of that, Sweetingham said, Rinderknecht called 911 more than a dozen times on Jan. 1. She felt it was a stretch to hold him accountable for the rekindling six days later, after a series of mistakes by fire commanders and others in failing to put out the earlier blaze, a sentiment echoed by a juror who spoke publicly after the trial.
“We’d like to see the government put that much focus and money and human capital into examining the institutions and the infrastructure, and the various departments that failed us, from Jan. 1 through Jan. 7, rather than retry a 30-year-old Uber driver who may or may not have started this fire at all,” Sweetingham said.
In a civil lawsuit against the city and the state, Los Angeles firefighters testified about a series of communication failures and questionable decisions by higher-ups that led crews to leave the area prematurely.
Fire crews were ordered to roll up their hoses, despite complaints that a more thorough mop-up was needed. One firefighter picking up hoses on Jan. 2 found crackling red-hot coals in the dirt. A captain cautioned his chief that it was too soon to pick up the hoses. And crews did not walk the entire perimeter of the burn scar after a report of smoke in the area on Jan. 3. Fire commanders also failed to pre-deploy engines in the area on Jan. 7 despite dire warnings of extreme winds.
Again, I’m not suggesting Rinderknecht is innocent, only that, even if he set the Jan. 1 fire, he’s not the sole reason the Palisades fire became the historic disaster it was. Other people who should have been responsible once called to the scene seem to have dropped the ball.
Technically, that may not matter in a criminal trial, but jurors may decide it does anyway. Even putting that aside, you have the evidence problem. Knowing something is likely true and proving it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury are two different things.
Editor’s Note: The American people overwhelmingly support President Trump’s law and order agenda.
Help us fight back against the Democrats and Soros-backed DAs that refuse to enforce our laws to hold criminals accountable. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
