Man Accused in Palisades Fire Claims Firefighters Share Responsibility
Defense Highlights Firefighters’ Role in Wildfire Case
In a significant development, the defense for Jonathan Rinderknecht, accused of igniting the January 2025 wildfires in Pacific Palisades, is urging the court to consider potential governmental negligence as part of its strategy. New court filings reveal that Rinderknecht’s attorneys are arguing that the Los Angeles Fire Department’s (LAFD) decision to leave a smoldering fire unaddressed should be pivotal in the jury’s deliberations.
Rinderknecht, 30, faces three federal arson charges linked to the Lachman Fire, which, according to federal prosecutors and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), remained smoldering underground until high winds reignited it six days later, leading to the Palisades Fire.
"The Defendant is entitled to present evidence and argument to the jury regarding the gross negligence of the Los Angeles Fire Department…and California State Parks in abandoning the smoldering Lachman burn scar on January 2, 2025," the defense claims in its filing. They suggest that the firefighters’ decision to abandon the area ahead of anticipated high winds violated standard wildfire protocols, representing a significant lapse in responsibility.
"This conduct—the conscious decision by multiple government fire agencies to abandon a known, visibly and audibly active smoldering wildfire burn scar—is precisely the type of gross, unforeseeable negligence that the law recognizes as a superseding intervening cause capable of breaking the causal chain in a criminal prosecution," the defense’s argument continues.
Federal prosecutors are pushing back, asking the judge to prevent discussions regarding LAFD’s actions. They argue that any alleged negligence is irrelevant to Rinderknecht’s liability for starting the fire. They contend that redirecting the trial into a discussion about the firefighting response could confuse jurors and unnecessarily extend proceedings. "Blaming first responders to avoid criminal liability is an impermissible attempt at jury nullification," the prosecutors wrote.
A ruling from the presiding judge is pending.
The defense has also referenced recent depositions of LAFD firefighters, who testified they were ordered to leave the Lachman burn area while it remained "visibly smoking" and "audibly crackling with active burning." These depositions stem from civil lawsuits filed by victims of the Palisades Fire against various agencies.
The City of Los Angeles and California State Parks have denied liability in court filings.
Earlier in March, Rinderknecht’s attorney, Steve Haney, argued that the firefighter statements should lead to the dismissal of charges, claiming they undermined the foundation of the prosecution’s case. "We’ll see Mr. Rinderknecht in court, and beyond that, we have no comment," a representative of the U.S. Attorney’s Office stated at the time.
NBC4 Investigates also reported in March that at least one witness to the Lachman Fire had observed a flash and heard a loud bang just before the blaze ignited, initially believing it to be fireworks. However, ATF agents dismissed fireworks as a potential cause, stating, "Nobody… saw fireworks in the vicinity of the Pacific Palisades prior to the start of the Lachman Fire."
Rinderknecht was arrested last year and indicted on multiple charges, including destruction of property by means of fire and arson affecting property used in interstate commerce. While not directly charged in connection with the January 7 Palisades Fire, he has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to stand trial in June.
