A federal judge declared a mistrial on June 26, 2026, in the arson prosecution of Jonathan Rinderknecht, 30, after the jury deadlocked 10 to 2 in favor of acquittal following 13 hours of deliberations [1][2]. Judge Anne Hwang of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California presided over the proceeding. Prosecutors announced they intend to retry the case, and Judge Hwang has set a retrial date of October 19, 2026 [3].
Rinderknecht faced three federal counts tied to the Lachman Fire, a blaze prosecutors alleged he set on New Year's Day 2025 in the hills above Pacific Palisades [1][2]. The government's theory held that the Lachman Fire, ignited under extreme wind conditions, subsequently grew into or merged with the broader Palisades Fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of structures across the Los Angeles area [2]. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, working alongside the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, led the investigation and prosecution [3]. Key figures in the proceedings included defense attorney Steve Haney and Assistant U.S. Attorney Danbee Kim [2].
The split verdict, heavily favoring the defense, presents a structural challenge for the government heading into a retrial. A 10-to-2 division in favor of acquittal signals that jurors found significant doubt in the prosecution's causal chain linking Rinderknecht's alleged conduct to the full scope of the Palisades Fire's destruction. Congressman Bill Essayli, who had publicly tracked the case, acknowledged the outcome as a setback for efforts to hold individuals criminally accountable for wildfire-related deaths and property loss in California [1].
With the retrial set for October 19, 2026, prosecutors face a defined window to reconfigure their evidentiary presentation, particularly on the causation element connecting the Lachman ignition to the broader Palisades disaster [2][3]. The defense, for its part, enters the second trial with confirmed knowledge of where the jury divided and why. Whether the government narrows its theory of liability or supplements its fire-origin evidence will likely determine whether a retrial produces a different outcome.