Jurors in the arson trial of Jonathan Rinderknecht were handed the high-profile case late Tuesday afternoon, and set to begin deliberating whether the 30-year-old former Uber driver, in an act of revenge, intentionally set the blaze that led to last year’s deadly Palisades fire or whether prosecutors badly misinterpreted the evidence in what may merely have been an accidental tragedy sparked by New Year’s Eve fireworks.
The federal jury in downtown Los Angeles was handed the case after attorneys for both sides presented closing arguments following nearly two weeks of arguments.
Prosecutors argued that Rinderknecht intentionally set the Jan. 1, 2025 Lachman fire that then smoldered underground for days before turning into the Jan. 7, 2025 Palisades fire, on the hillside of the Hidden Buddha clearing, using a lighter to ignite vegetation, resulting in “thousands of people who had to suffer for this defendant’s anger and frustration on New Year’s Eve,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Danbee Kim said.
The defense argued that Rinderknecht was a cooperative citizen who observed the flames on New Year’s Day in 2025 and called authorities to report it. His lamentations of frustration towards the wealthy were nothing atypical, defense attorney Steve Haney argued, but rather sentiments many Americans hold towards the elite.
The Palisades fire killed 12 people, destroyed or damaged over 7,500 homes and businesses and burned almost 23,500 acres.
Rinderknecht faces charges of destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and timber set afire and up to 45 years in prison if convicted.
Kim presented the government’s closing argument, arguing that Rinderknecht started the Lachman fire after his swirling anger about society and the wealthy came to a head after he was socially rejected for New Year’s Eve plans. That fire, Kim argued, left a “disfigured scar in its wake on the surface and as you know, a smoldering threat underground,” that became the Palisades conflagration.
In urging the jury to find the defendant guilty on all charges, Kim argued that he had the means, motive and opportunity to light the Lachman fire and highlighted what she called his escalating anger, months of stewing and resentment towards the rich and powerful. This was demonstrated in the defendant’s ChatGPT logs where he ranted and asked the chatbot to create images of a fire in July 2024, “vile” messages to a former coworker and tirades to Uber passengers he drove, the prosecution argued.
“…it’s about a perceived wrong,” she said.
Haney, calling the jurors “gatekeepers of common sense,” called the government’s evidence presented against Rinderknecht into question, emphasizing that thousands of videos show only when the Lachman fire became visible, not when it started and not the defendant starting it.
“It began with a man who called 911 on a hill, Jonathan Rinderknecht. And then over time, theories changed to fit him. But the evidence didn’t,” he said.
Haney argued that Rinderknecht’s final Uber passenger, dropped off in the Palisades shortly before Rinderknecht is accused of starting the Lachman fire, testified that the ride was uneventful, He focused on what he called a lack of direct evidence presented by the government and reminded jurors that this case is not about how they feel about Rinderknecht.
“It’s isolated fragments dressed up as proof,” Haney said. “The law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of evidence, of which you heard very little of…”
Haney argued that the fire’s time and date, January 1, 2025 around the time of midnight, suggest that fireworks were the most likely cause of the Lachman fire, a theory he said officials believed at the outset of their investigation. He recounted the testimony of witnesses, some who were at the Top of the World lookout in the Palisades, one firefighter at Station 23 and a homeowner in the Summit neighborhood, who recalled hearing fireworks or seeing flashes of light on New Year’s Eve.
“The ATF got search warrants for fireworks because they had probable cause to believe the Lachman fire was started by fireworks,” Haney said.
Prosecutors reminded the jury of several witnesses, investigators who testified that over 500 tests of cigarettes were done, lightning data was collected and evidence of fireworks was searched for, but all were excluded as potential causes of the fire, as was refraction and power lines. If there was no cause established for the fire, investigators could classify it as undetermined, but investigators with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined that the fire was lit with an open flame.
Prosecutors say it was Rinderknecht’s green BIC lighter, found in his car’s glovebox with his DNA on it, that the fire was set with. He admitted to investigators that he had a lighter with him on the hill that night, but did not know what lighter it was. Prosecutors say the BIC lighter was the only one officials found in his home, car or on his person.
Haney dismissed the importance of the DNA, arguing that it is to be expected for Rinderknecht’s lighter to have his DNA on it.
“Ownership, here, is not the issue. Use is the issue,” he said. The government does not have direct proof of Rinderknecht starting the blaze, Haney argued.
Haney, during closing arguments and throughout the trial, focused on the idea that the Lachman fire scene was corrupted– it wasn’t secured until days later, remained open to the public, was disturbed by winds and fire suppression efforts including water and slurry, and burned again by the Palisades fire.
“The reality is that evidence was lost, destroyed, gone for good…” he said.
The government argued that fire investigators testified that fire pattern indicators, which they use to determine the origin and cause of fires, can be present after disruption and long periods of time, much more than the 12 days that passed before ATF investigators arrived to the Palisades scene.
“A fire scene is very different, a fire scene is robust and stable,” Kim said.