By MES Dispatch Staff
The Briefing
- Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29, stands trial in federal court on arson charges for allegedly sparking the deadly Palisades Fire in Los Angeles on January 1, 2025, which became one of California’s most destructive wildfires.
- Two Los Angeles Fire Department firefighters delivered conflicting testimony Monday about whether fireworks were heard before the blaze, a central point of contention in the defense’s theory that incidental fireworks ignited the brush fire.
- LAFD Firefighter Robert Appleford testified he heard and saw fireworks around midnight, while his captain, Dave Sanders, testified he did not hear or see fireworks, contradicting earlier statements to a fire investigator.
- The defense called expert witnesses who testified fireworks were the most likely cause of the fire, while prosecution experts characterized the fire as intentionally set.
- A juror was dismissed after thanking Appleford for his service outside the courtroom, prompting the judge to rule the juror exhibited bias toward the fire department.
LOS ANGELES, CALIF. — Federal prosecutors continued building their case against Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29, on charges of arson in connection with the Palisades Fire, though Monday’s testimony from Los Angeles Fire Department witnesses delivered conflicting accounts that undermined key defense assertions about the fire’s origin.
The brush fire ignited January 1, 2025, in the coastal Pacific Palisades neighborhood and subsequently expanded into one of the most destructive wildfires in California history. Prosecutors have portrayed Rinderknecht as mentally unstable and vengeful toward society, while his defense attorney, Steve Haney, has consistently argued that New Year’s Eve fireworks ignited the blaze.
Firefighter Robert Appleford, stationed in Pacific Palisades, testified that he observed flashes of light and heard fireworks beginning around midnight on January 1, with the sounds continuing into the early morning hours. Minutes after the fireworks ceased, the fire department received a call reporting the brush fire now attributed to Rinderknecht.
Captain Dave Sanders subsequently testified that he neither heard nor observed fireworks that evening. When Haney questioned Sanders about prior statements to fire investigator Kyle Brown indicating he had heard fireworks, Sanders denied making such statements. The contradictory accounts between the two officers directly challenged the defense’s fireworks theory.
The defense presented its own expert witnesses who testified that fireworks represented the most probable cause of the ignition. Prosecutors spent considerable time on cross-examination attacking the experts’ methodology and credibility. Additionally, Haney called Ari Sallus, a veterinary student who lost his family home in the fire, to testify that he observed a flash of light and heard a loud bang while hiking near the fire’s reported origin point. Sallus stated he subsequently saw a small orange light growing steadily in the same direction and immediately called 911.
Prior witnesses called by Haney included a neighborhood security guard and a Pacific Palisades resident who both testified they heard fireworks and observed a group of teenagers running down a trail near the area where authorities determined the fire began.
The conflicting testimony prompted a separate courtroom incident when Federal Judge Anne Hwang informed attorneys that a juror had thanked Appleford for his service as he departed the witness stand. Hwang ruled the interaction “entirely inappropriate,” noting that the juror’s expression of gratitude despite Appleford’s testimony not addressing his firefighting work demonstrated prejudicial bias toward the fire department. The judge excused the juror and seated an alternate.
The trial additionally addressed evidentiary limitations placed on the defense. Haney initially sought to argue that the fire department bore responsibility by failing to extinguish the initial January 1 fire. Depositions from a firefighter and state park ranger indicated the blaze remained visibly smoldering when first responders departed, with personnel reporting hot spots in the burn area. However, Judge Hwang ruled that evidence of fire department negligence in responding to the January 1 fire was irrelevant and inadmissible, stating such evidence could confuse the jury.
The trial continues with prosecution experts scheduled to provide further analysis of the fire’s origin and cause.