Firefighters deliver conflicting testimony over fireworks in Palisades Fire arson trial

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Firefighters delivered conflicting testimony Monday during the federal arson trial for the man accused of sparking the deadly Palisades Fire in Los Angeles last year, with one saying he heard fireworks before the blaze started and the other saying he did not.

The government has accused Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29, of sparking a brush fire in the coastal Pacific Palisades neighborhood on Jan. 1, 2025, that they say ultimately reignited and became one of the most destructive wildfires in California history.

Prosecutors have spent the duration of the trial painting Rinderknecht as a vengeful, mentally unstable arsonist who was angry at society. They brought expert witnesses who testified the fire cause was “incendiary,” or caused by an open flame. Rinderknecht’s attorney Steve Haney has repeatedly posited that investigators missed one simple explanation: fireworks.

Defending that explanation proved to be difficult Monday when Haney called two firefighters to the stand that delivered contradicting accounts of the evening. Later, the judge dismissed a juror who thanked one of the firefighters for their service after the testimony.

Los Angeles Fire Department firefighter Robert Appleford, stationed in the Pacific Palisades, testified to seeing flashes of light and hearing fireworks before and after midnight that evening. Minutes later, the department received a call about the brush fire that Rinderknecht is accused of sparking.

But Appleford’s captain, Dave Sanders, later testified that he did not see or hear any fireworks. When Haney asked if Sanders recalled being interviewed by fire investigator Kyle Brown and telling him that he heard fireworks that night, Sanders said no.

Haney declined to comment on Sanders’ testimony.

The uncooperative witness testimony was a blow to the defense, who also called two of their own expert witnesses to cast doubt on the federal investigation and testify that fireworks were the most likely cause of the fire. Prosecutors spent hours questioning their credibility on cross examination.

Haney also asked a Pacific Palisades resident who lost his family home in the fire to testify about hearing fireworks on New Years Eve. Veterinary student Ari Sallus said he was hiking up a nearby hill with his girlfriend when he saw a flash of light and heard a loud bang from behind him.

He kept hiking and reached the top of the hill minutes later. In the same direction that he heard the bang earlier, he spotted a “little orange light” that was growing steadily and called 911.

On Thursday, Haney had called to the stand a security guard for the neighborhood and another resident who lived close to the hiking trail leading up to the clearing that the government has said was the origin point of the fire. Both said they heard fireworks and saw a group of teenagers running down the trail after.

The firefighter witnesses also led to a juror being dismissed. During a break, Judge Anne Hwang informed attorneys that she heard one juror say to Appleford, “Thank you for your service,” as he stepped off the stand.

Haney said it was “entirely inappropriate” for a juror to interact with a witness “favorably or unfavorably.”

Hwang agreed. She said the juror’s act of thanking the firefighter for his service despite him not even testifying about his firefighting work on the stand showed “strong feelings” on the issue.

“It does demonstrate a bias toward the LA Fire Department,” Hwang said, ultimately excusing that juror and seating an alternate.

Monday’s trial proceedings demonstrated the impact of some of the limits placed on the defense, who initially planned to argue that it was the fire department’s fault for not putting out the Jan. 1 fire.

Haney had wanted to use depositions from a firefighter and a state park ranger that the Jan. 1 blaze was still visibly smoldering when first responders left. The firefighter alerted his supervisors of so-called hot spots in the burn area. That testimony was gathered as part of a lawsuit filed by fire victims against the city.

However, Hwang ruled that any evidence or argument of LAFD negligence in their response to the Jan. 1 fire could not be used at trial. She said it was irrelevant and could confuse the jury.