Prosecutors narrow their case ahead of the retrial of the man accused of setting the Palisades fire
Aug 14, 2026, 1:27 PM
FILE - Water is dropped by helicopter on the advancing Palisades Fire in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles, Jan. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Etienne Laurent, File)
Credit: AP Photo/Etienne Laurent
(AP Photo/Etienne Laurent, File)
Los Angeles (AP) — Federal prosecutors will pursue fewer charges in their second attempt to convict a man accused of starting the deadly 2025 wildfire that became the most destructive in Los Angeles’ history.
A jury deadlocked in June over whether to convict Jonathan Rinderknecht of intentionally sparking the fire that killed 12 people as it incinerated much of the Pacific Palisades and other neighborhoods in Malibu. Ten out of 12 jurors wanted to acquit him on all three felony charges, leading the judge to declare a mistrial. Federal prosecutors vowed to try again, and a second trial is set to start in the fall.
In a new indictment filed Thursday, prosecutors reduced their case against Rinderknecht to two charges and narrowed their scope.
Prosecutors allege that Rinderknecht used a barbecue lighter on Jan. 1, 2025, to spark a fire that burned undetected deep in root systems before flaring back up Jan. 7 to become the Palisades fire, which destroyed more than 6,800 buildings.
All three charges in the first trial blamed Rinderknecht for setting both the Jan. 1 fire and the Palisades Fire. In the new indictment, only one charge references both fires. The other only focuses on the destruction caused by the first fire.
Rinderknecht’s attorney and a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment on the new indictment. U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang is holding a status conference for an arraignment on Wednesday.
Throughout the first trial, prosecutors argued that Rinderknecht was the only person in the area when the Jan. 1 fire began and presented a digital trail seeking to show he was motivated by a desire to take revenge on society over rampant economic inequality. They also presented hours of recorded interviews with Rinderknecht in which he offered inconsistent recollections about his movements that night.
Rinderknecht’s attorneys argued that prosecutors lacked direct evidence showing that he started the fire and that they failed to consider fireworks as a potential cause of the first fire.
