Add The California Post on Google After jurors overwhelmingly rejected the government’s case against accused Palisades fire starter Jonathan Rinderknecht, federal prosecutors need to ditch their character attacks and focus on the evidence for his retrial, legal experts told The California Post.
Rather than painting Rinderknecht as “a loser who hates rich people,” the prosecution should build its case around fire science, timelines and his movements before the blaze, they said.
Legal analyst Royal Oakes said the case was never a slam dunk for the government’s high-powered legal team because it hinges almost entirely on circumstantial evidence.
“They have to get back to basics. Focus on his conduct, where he was at every moment, and how strangely coincidental it was that he was there,” Oakes said.
“That’s going to be far more powerful than a generic character assassination that says he’s a moody loner, a bad guy or someone who hates rich people.
“The first trial sounded like a case about the defendant’s personality. The retrial has to be a case about fire science. Jurors don’t convict because they think somebody is angry, eccentric or resentful.
“Second time around, the prosecution has to boil it down, simplify it, make the defendant’s own conduct the centerpiece and show exactly where he was at every key moment.”
Oakes said prosecutors’ biggest hurdle remains the lack of direct evidence linking Rinderknecht to the fire.
“The problem is this is a circumstantial case,” he said. “They don’t have video of him setting the fire, an eyewitness, DNA or fingerprints.”
He said investigators believed Rinderknecht wanted to torch multimillion-dollar homes in Pacific Palisades because he resented wealthy residents, but said motive alone was never enough.
“The government also has to do a better job dismantling the fireworks defense,” Oakes said.
“The defense’s central argument was that fireworks sparked the Lachman Fire, creating reasonable doubt.”
He added that prosecutors must spend far more time explaining why investigators concluded fireworks did not ignite the Lachman Fire, which days later grew into the deadly Palisades Fire.
Oakes also said jurors may have struggled with the fact that Rinderknecht repeatedly called 911 to report the fire.
“Maybe he thought it would make him look innocent,” Oakes said. “But if you’re an arsonist who’s thrilled to see flames racing through expensive homes, why would you repeatedly call 911 and reduce the damage you supposedly wanted to cause? That may have been another head-scratcher for the jury.”
Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, agreed that prosecutors face an uphill fight despite what he described as “strong circumstantial evidence.”
“The other challenge is that law enforcement waited nine months to arrest and charge Rinderknecht,” Rahmani said. “By then, Angelenos had already formed strong opinions about who was responsible for the fires, and many blamed Mayor Karen Bass and the Los Angeles Fire Department.
“Those jurors brought those feelings into the deliberation room and may have viewed Rinderknecht as a scapegoat for the government’s failures.”
