The Los Angeles Times reports that a mistrial was declared today in the trial of Jonathan Rinderknecht, who was accused by the Department of Justice of starting the Palisades fire last year. The Times reports that “U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang declared a mistrial after the jurors said they were unable to reach a verdict on any of the felony charges, with a final vote of 10 to 2 for acquittal.”

The Palisades fire caused enormous harm and destruction, including the loss of 12 human lives and incalculable damage to the environment, so it’s very understandable that the public was eager to find the person or persons responsible and hold them accountable. But the prosecution’s case against Rinderknecht was always flimsy and leaned heavily on the criminalization and scapegoating of people with mental health issues in lieu of compelling evidence. It seems clear to me that in lieu of compelling evidence, the DOJ tried to portray Rinderknecht as disabled and hence disposable, and their strategy seemed to be to hope that the jury would overlook the weak evidence against Rinderknecht in favor of reaching a guilty verdict.

One interesting piece of “evidence” that was submitted by prosecutors is that shortly after the fire started, Rinderknecht asked ChatGPT if he could be held liable for the fire since he was smoking cigarettes in the area before the fire started. But I think it’s reasonable that any person of conscience who was in the area would be concerned if they were somehow responsible for starting the blaze. It was certainly irresponsible for Rinderknecht to leave his cigarettes on the ground, but being concerned about one’s potential culpability is not the same as being guilty. There is no question that Rinderknecht was smoking in the area and that his cigarettes could have started the fire, but the prosecution completely failed to show that Rinderknecht’s cigarettes were the actual cause of the fire (as opposed to countless other possible causes, including fireworks).

Prosecutors alleged that Rinderknecht was lonely, financially insecure, and angry at billionaires… Okay, and so is half or more of the world. Rinderknecht’s defense team has noted that “the prosecution’s entire case [seemed] focused on his client’s despair rather than the cause of the fire or proof that Rinderknecht was the person who set it.”

That in a nutshell is why the DOJ’s case against — and the media coverage about Rinderknecht — was ableist and extremely politicized. The idea that experiencing mental health issues or being angry over social injustice is the equivalent of committing a crime is preposterous, and truly underscores the ableism that is at the core of the criminal legal system.  I’m glad that ten out twelve jurors rejected that ableist logic, but it doesn’t change the fact that the flimsy, carceral logics scaffolding our entire criminal legal system are responsible for so many people who are falsely accused and convicted under such a system, especially marginalized people. As Imani Barbarin notes, “It’s all about who finds you disposable.” But then again, that seems to be the system operating the way it was always intended.

Importantly, The LA Times notes that “The mistrial leaves unresolved questions about who is responsible for the fire that killed 12 people, destroyed 6,500 structures from Pacific Palisades to Malibu and caused billions of dollars in losses.” Now, thanks to the DOJ’s ineptitude, we may never know.

Source: The Los Angeles Times