A United States District Judge has declared a mistrial in the case of Jonathan Rinderknecht. He was accused of starting the 2025 Palisades Fire, but the jury was unable to agree on a final verdict.

一名美國地區法官宣布 Jonathan Rinderknecht 的案件審理終止。他被指控在 2025 年引起 Palisades 山火，但陪審團無法就最終裁決達成一致。

The trial focused on three federal charges: destroying property with fire, arson affecting interstate commerce, and setting timber on fire. Prosecutors asserted that the defendant used a grill lighter to start the 'Lachman Fire' on January 1, 2025. They claimed the fire burned underground for six days before returning to the surface on January 7, helped by strong Santa Ana winds. Consequently, this grew into the Palisades Fire, which killed 12 people, destroyed about 6,800 buildings, and burned over 23,000 acres, causing between $35 billion and $50 billion in damages.

審訊集中在三項聯邦指控：以火毀壞財產、影響州際貿易的縱火，以及焚燒木材。控方指稱被告在 2025 年 1 月 1 日使用點火槍引起「Lachman 火災」。他們聲稱火災在地下燃燒了六天，隨後在 1 月 7 日受強烈聖安娜風影響重回地表。

There was a clear disagreement over the evidence. The government emphasized that the defendant was motivated by anger toward society and wealth inequality, using GPS data to place him at the scene. However, the defense argued that the evidence was weak and indirect, suggesting that fireworks might have actually caused the fire. Furthermore, the defense claimed the defendant was being blamed for the Los Angeles Fire Department's failure to put out the first fire completely.

雙方對證據存在明顯分歧。政府強調被告是因為對社會與財富不平等感到憤怒而起意，並利用 GPS 數據證明他當時在現場。然而，辯方主張證據薄弱且為間接證據，並暗示火災可能是由煙火引起的。此外，辯方聲稱被告是被用來承擔洛杉磯消防局未能完全撲滅首次火災的責任。

Apart from the criminal charges, the trial is important for civil lawsuits. Many victims have sued the city of Los Angeles and state agencies. Some lawyers suggested that if the defendant were convicted, the government agencies might face less financial responsibility. Others argued, however, that lawsuits regarding negligence in the emergency response would still be possible regardless of the trial's result.

除刑事指控外，此次審訊對民事訴訟亦至關重要。許多受害者起訴了洛杉磯市與州政府機構。部分律師認為，若被告被定罪，政府機構可能承擔較少的財務責任。但也有人主張，無論審訊結果如何，針對緊急應變疏忽的訴訟依然可行。

The trial ended without a verdict because the jurors were split 10-2 in favor of finding the defendant not guilty. The government has announced that it plans to retry the case, and the defendant remains in custody.

由於陪審員 10 比 2 票數傾向判定被告無罪，審訊在沒有裁決的情況下結束。政府宣布計劃重新審理此案，被告目前依然被拘留。