Federal prosecutors, in a new complaint filed Thursday, Aug. 13, revised the charges against accused Palisades fire arsonist Jonathan Rinderknecht, dropping one charge and reworking two.
Rinderknecht originally was charged with destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and timber set afire. His federal trial in June ended in a mistrial after nearly 13 hours of deliberations, with jurors split 10 in favor of not guilty and two in favor of guilty, unable to come to a unanimous decision.
In the new superseding indictment, which was returned by a federal grand jury and filed Thursday, Rinderknecht is charged with two arson-related counts, with the timber set afire charge dropped.
The new indictment contains tightened allegations against Rinderknecht for the counts of destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce.
The indictment limits the destruction of property by means of fire charge to only reference the Lachman fire, the Jan. 1, 2025 holdover fire Rinderknecht is accused of starting with a lighter that became the Palisades fire during strong winds days later.
The Palisades fire burned over 23,500 acres, killed 12 people and destroyed or damaged over 7,500 homes and businesses as it burned in the Pacific Palisades, Malibu and neighboring areas in January 2025.
The new indictment contains a tightened list of buildings and other real and personal property affected by the Lachman and Palisades blazes and affected property that receives federal financial assistance, now only listing Topanga State Park and land owned by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority.
A retrial is scheduled for October. Rinderknecht remains in custody ahead of the new trial.
In the initial trial, prosecutors argued that Rinderknecht, disenfranchised by wealth inequality and society, set the Lachman fire with a lighter when he found himself in his old Pacific Palisades neighborhood as he stewed with anger on New Year’s Eve.
Defense attorney Steve Haney argued that there was no evidence Rinderknecht started the blaze, that the fire could have been started by a firework or other means and that the fire scene was not secured.