Los Angeles – The federal retrial of Jonathan Rinderknecht, 30, continued Tuesday with a surprise development that could reshape the case against him for the 2025 Palisades Fire. Defense counsel told the judge they had been contacted by a retired CalFire agent who now works as a private insurance investigator. The former agent claims he has evidence of fireworks igniting the small Lachman Fire on New Year’s Eve, a detail the defense hopes will introduce reasonable doubt.
New witness request
Attorney Steve Haney reported that the retired agent reached out Monday afternoon, offering to testify that he had spoken with a witness who saw fireworks in the area around midnight on Jan. 1, 2025. Defense lawyers interviewed the man that night and moved to add him to the trial roster. Prosecutors objected, requesting additional time to review the new information.
The judge ordered the defense to submit a formal affidavit by midday, but a decision on the witness’s admissibility had not been reached by Tuesday afternoon.
Background of the case
Rinderknecht was originally tried in June 2025 for allegedly igniting the Lachman Fire, which later merged with strong Santa Ana winds into the devastating Palisades Fire that burned 23,400 acres, claimed 12 lives, and destroyed more than 6,800 structures. The first jury dead‑locked 10‑2 in favor of acquittal, prompting a retrial.
Federal prosecutors allege Rinderknecht intentionally set the Lachman Fire along a hiking trail in the Palisades highlands because he was “frustrated with his place in society” and harbored anger toward wealthy residents. They describe him as a man consumed by loneliness and anger. At the time of the fire, Rinderknecht was working as a ride‑share driver; a passenger testified that he was venting throughout the ride.
Defense theory
The defense has long argued that the Lachman Fire could have been sparked by New Year’s Eve fireworks, a theory supported by several witnesses who reported hearing and seeing fireworks around midnight on Jan. 1. Prosecutors, however, maintain there is no concrete evidence linking fireworks to the fire’s ignition.
Haney noted that the evidence regarding fireworks remains “insufficient to prove the Lachman Fire was intentionally set” and that the claim that embers reignited during the later windstorm is “far from conclusive.”
Procedural notes
Both sides are bound by discovery rules that require disclosure of evidence and witnesses before trial. While exculpatory evidence—information that could exonerate a defendant—may be introduced mid‑trial, the judge’s order for more information reflects the court’s careful handling of new testimony.
U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang has instructed that the retrial not reference the first trial, aiming to keep the proceedings focused on the revised indictment, which separates the arson allegation from the later Palisades Fire.
What’s next?
The court will decide whether the retired CalFire agent can testify. If admitted, his testimony could bolster the defense’s fireworks theory, potentially shifting the jury’s view of Rinderknecht’s intent. The retrial is expected to continue over the coming weeks, with both sides preparing to present additional evidence.
Attorney Steve Haney told reporters after an October pre‑trial hearing that he anticipates new defense evidence but declined to provide specifics, underscoring the evolving nature of the case.
Original reporting: NBC4 Los Angeles — read the source article.
