Rinderknecht retrial about to begin in Los Angeles

By Judy Abel · Fri Oct 30 2026

Federal judge considers restricting evidence

With the retrial of arson suspect Jonathan Rinderknecht about to get underway in Los Angeles, the presiding federal judge announced she is considering restricting some evidence. U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang, who oversaw Rinderknecht’s first trial, said at an Oct. 22 hearing she was inclined to grant prosecutors’ request to instruct jurors not to consider whether firefighters adequately extinguished the initial blaze, known as the Lachman Fire, before it grew into the Palisades Fire. However, she deferred a final decision until after the retrial begins Nov. 2.

With Rinderknecht accused of starting the initial blaze Jan. 1, 2025, the retrial will test whether federal prosecutors can persuade a jury that he was responsible for the disaster that killed 12 people, destroyed thousands of homes and structures and displaced families and residents across Pacific Palisades and Malibu. Rinderknecht’s first trial in June ended in a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict on any of the three original charges. The jury reportedly split 10 to 2 in favor of acquittal, dealing a significant setback to prosecutors who had argued that Rinderknecht intentionally started the initial blaze.

Prosecutors maintain that Rinderknecht ignited the Lachman Fire shortly after midnight on Jan. 1, 2025, using a lighter at a hillside clearing in Pacific Palisades. They allege that the fire continued smoldering underground after firefighters left the scene and that embers later reignited amid powerful Santa Ana winds, producing the much larger Palisades Fire on Jan. 7.

In August, prosecutors obtained a revised indictment that reduced the case from three charges to two. One charge focuses on alleged damage caused by the initial Lachman Fire, while the other seeks to hold Rinderknecht responsible for the destruction associated with both fires. The original charge of setting timber afire was dropped.

The judge’s pending decision addresses one of the most contentious issues raised during the first trial: whether the Los Angeles Fire Department’s response to the initial fire contributed to the subsequent catastrophe.

During the first trial, Rinderknecht’s defense attorney, Steve Haney, argued that his client was being made a scapegoat for failures by fire officials. The defense sought to introduce testimony from firefighters and a state park ranger indicating that the initial fire was still smoldering when crews left the scene. Evidence developed in civil litigation against the city and state included accounts of communication problems and disagreements over whether the fire had been adequately extinguished.

According to reported testimony, firefighters were ordered to collect their hoses despite concerns that additional work was necessary. One firefighter reportedly discovered hot, crackling coals in the dirt on Jan. 2, and a captain had warned that it was too early to leave. Crews also did not walk the entire perimeter of the burn area after smoke was reported on Jan. 3.

Prosecutors contend that jurors must focus on whether Rinderknecht committed the crimes charged, rather than whether firefighters made mistakes. At the Oct. 22 hearing, prosecutors argued that the question of the department’s response had become so prominent that jurors needed an instruction clarifying what evidence they could consider. They warned that failing to provide such guidance could increase the risk of another deadlocked jury.

Hwang expressed concern about whether jurors would be able to distinguish between evidence about the adequacy of the firefighting response and evidence relevant to whether the initial blaze continued smoldering underground.

Haney has indicated that the defense expects to present a case similar to the one heard during the first trial, while challenging the government’s theory of ignition.

During the earlier proceedings, defense witnesses questioned whether the fire began where prosecutors said it did. Witnesses also described hearing noises resembling fireworks around the time the blaze was first detected, and a defense expert argued that fireworks were a possible explanation for the ignition.

The defense has also questioned the significance of a lighter that prosecutors believe was used to start the fire. Haney has said additional testing involving the lighter will be an important issue during the retrial.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, have relied on a combination of phone-location information, surveillance footage, 911 calls, digital records, and statements they attribute to Rinderknecht to support their allegations.

A pretrial conference is scheduled for Oct. 29. Jury selection begins Nov. 2. Rinderknecht, 30, has pleaded not guilty and remains in federal custody.