Prosecutors face scrutiny after weak case in Palisades Hearth trial

After jurors overwhelmingly rejected the federal government’s case in opposition to accused Palisades firestarter Jonathan Rinderknecht, federal prosecutors must ditch their character assaults and concentrate on the proof for his retrial, authorized consultants advised The California Submit.

Fairly than portray Rinderknecht as “a loser who hates wealthy folks,” the prosecution ought to construct its case round fireplace science, timelines and his actions earlier than the blaze, they mentioned.

Authorized analyst Royal Oakes mentioned the case was by no means a slam dunk for the federal government’s high-powered authorized workforce as a result of it hinges virtually fully on circumstantial proof.

“They need to get again to fundamentals. Deal with his conduct, the place he was at each second and the way surprisingly coincidental it was that he was there,” Oakes mentioned.

“That’s going to be much more highly effective than a generic character assassination that claims he’s a moody loner, a nasty man or somebody who hates wealthy folks. The primary trial seemed like a case concerning the defendant’s character. The retrial needs to be a case about fireplace science. Jurors don’t convict as a result of they suppose any person is indignant, eccentric or resentful.”

“Second time round, the prosecution has to boil it down, simplify it, make the defendant’s personal conduct the centerpiece and present precisely the place he was at each key second.”

Oakes mentioned prosecutors’ largest hurdle stays the dearth of direct proof linking Rinderknecht to the fireplace.

“The issue is this can be a circumstantial case,” he mentioned. “They don’t have video of him setting the fireplace, an eyewitness, DNA or fingerprints.”

He mentioned investigators believed Rinderknecht needed to torch multimillion-dollar houses within the Pacific Palisades as a result of he resented rich residents, however the motive alone was by no means sufficient.

“The federal government additionally has to do a greater job dismantling the fireworks protection,” Oakes mentioned. “The protection’s central argument was that fireworks sparked the Lachman Hearth, creating affordable doubt.”

He added that prosecutors should spend much more time explaining why investigators concluded fireworks didn’t ignite the Lachman Hearth, which days later grew into the lethal Palisades Hearth.

Oakes additionally mentioned jurors could have struggled with the truth that Rinderknecht repeatedly referred to as 911 to report the fireplace.

“Possibly he thought it will make him look harmless,” Oakes mentioned. “However in the event you’re an arsonist who’s thrilled to see flames racing by way of costly houses, why would you repeatedly name 911 and cut back the injury you supposedly needed to trigger? That will have been one other head-scratcher for the jury.”

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Attorneys, agreed that prosecutors face an uphill battle regardless of what he described as “sturdy circumstantial proof.”

“The opposite problem is that regulation enforcement waited 9 months to arrest and cost Rinderknecht,” Rahmani mentioned. “By then, Angelenos had already shaped sturdy opinions about who was liable for the fires, and plenty of blamed Mayor Karen Bass and the Los Angeles Hearth Division.

“These jurors introduced these emotions into the deliberation room and should have seen Rinderknecht as a scapegoat for the federal government’s failures.”

---

Obtain The California Submit App, observe us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters