What to KnowJonathan Rinderknecht, 30, faced three arson counts in connection with January 2025 wildfires in the coastal LA County community of Pacific Palisades.The federal arson charges are destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce, and timber s et afire.On Thursday, jurors initially indicated they reached a unanimous decision, but later sent a note to the judge saying they were at a standstill and unable to agree. The jury said there were divisions among multiple jurors, but the judge ordered the panel to return to court Friday in an effort to seek a path forward. After a meeting with attorneys and briefly speaking with the jury, the judge declared a mistrial. A new trial was scheduled for Oct. 19. Rinderknecht will remain in custody. A mistrial was declared Friday after jurors indicated they cannot reach unanimous decisions on arson charges in the federal trial over the January 2025 Palisades wildfires. U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang announced the decision Friday morning, a day after the jury told the court there were deep divisions among the panel of eight women and four men that could not be resolved after hours of deliberations. Wildfires Oct 8, 2025 New details emerge about start of deadly Palisades Fire. See a timeline of events Thirty-year-old Jonathan Rinderknecht faced three arson counts in connection with the fires — destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce, and timber set afire. In a unusual chain of events Thursday, jurors who had been in deliberations since Wednesday morning indicated to the court that they reached unanimous verdicts, but later sent a note to the judge saying they were at an impasse with disagreement among multiple jurors. Hwang polled individual jurors Friday, asking them about the failure to agree. Their responses indicated 10 members found Rinderknecht not guilty with two reaching guilty verdicts. All agreed there was nothing the court could do to help the panel move forward with deliberations and arrive at a decision. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said the government will pursue a retrial over the two fires. The Lachman Fire started Jan. 1, 2025 and smoldered for days before it was fanned by a powerful Santa Ana windstorm on Jan. 7 and became the Palisades Fire, authorities said. “The evidence is strong that Jonathan Rinderknecht is responsible for igniting the fire on January 1, 2025, which eventually became the Palisades fire,” Essayli said in a post on X. “We fully intend to retry this case before a new jury and obtain guilty verdicts on all charged counts.” A new trial was scheduled for Oct. 19. Rinderknecht will remain in custody. Defense attorney Steven Haney said he is optimistic about any future legal proceedings. “Ten to 2 is an overwhelming message from the jury that the government failed,” Haney said. A juror spoke with reporters outside court Friday and said there was back-and-forth during deliberations, but members refused to “budge.” She said some jurors initially indicated they were undecided, but eventually made up their minds after discussions. The juror, who said she was saddened by the jury’s inability to agree on verdicts, said she felt there was not enough evidence to the heap responsibility for the Palisades Fire and the destruction it wrought entirely on Rinderknecht. Thousands of structures were destroyed and 12 people died in the Palisades Fire, but Rinderknecht was not charged in connection with those deaths and prosecutors were not permitted to discuss the deaths during the trial. “There was just not enough proof,” she said. “I just felt like… a lot of holes.” As for the previous day’s confusion, the juror said it stemmed from a misunderstanding about language on a court form used to indicate the jury reached a unanimous verdict. She said the foreperson thought the form, which includes a check box to indicate the jury’s decision was unanimous, asked whether the decision was “un-unanimous.” After discussions with attorneys and further insistence Thursday from the jury that the could not reach a decision, the judge convened proceedings for the day and ordered jurors to return Friday in an effort to determine next steps. The U.S. Attorney’s Office issued a statement Thursday afternoon that said the jury was “deadlocked,” and the trial will continue. Before the jury was set to arrive Friday, the defense and prosecution teams met with a judge to determine how to proceed in what legal experts called a series of highly unusual courtroom developments. “It’s just totally bizzarro world stuff,” said NBCLA legal analyst Royal Oakes. “This weird variation, I don’t get it. The real problem is that it sounds bad when the foreman says… we’ve got people dead set on both sides. That says it’s not 11 to 1, it’s at least two people on one side and then 10 on the other.” In a note Thursday, the jury said there was nothing the court could do to help them move forward. In closing argument Tuesday, prosecutors asked jurors to return guilty verdicts based on irrefutable location data that placed Rinderknecht at the scene of the first of the two Palisades fires on Jan. 1, 2025. “That is what the evidence has proven throughout this trial, beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Assistant US Attorney Danbee Kim. ATF fire wildland fire experts testified that burn patterns on bushes and shrubs led them to conclude embers left smoldering underground from the Lachman fire, reignited six days later during intense winds and grew into the devastating Palisades fire, making Rinderknecht responsible for the destruction from both events. Kim said the motive for the arson could be found in Rinderknecht’s online activity, which she said revealed a ‘festering’ anger and frustration with the rich and powerful, and showed jurors evidence photos of a green Bic barbecue lighter found in his car. “He went up a hill in the Pacific Palisades, a neighborhood he personally associated with wealth and rejection, he took this lighter with him,” and said while everyone else celebrated New Year’s, “the defendant lit this fire.” Haney said there wasn’t enough proof his client had ignited that fire, or, that it was caused by arson at all, and told jurors during his closing argument that the more likely explanation for the fire was New Year’s fireworks. Haney also said the scene of the first fire was never preserved or examined until after the second fire, the Jan. 7 Palisades Fire, burned the same area again, likely destroying clues that might have explained how it started. He said the government’s conclusions the Lachman Fire smoldered for six days and caused the Palisades fire didn’t make sense. “If you are left uncertain on this bridge between Jan. 1 and Jan. 7, then reasonable doubt remains,” he said. ...read more read less