A deadlocked jury for the man accused of sparking the inferno that led to the Palisades Fire has fueled fear that ideology is making its way into the jury box, with one former prosecutor concerned that it could impact trial.
A federal judge on Friday for the man accused of deliberately causing the Palisades Fire, Jonathan Rinderknecht, after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. He was arrested in October 2025 and charged with destruction of property by means of fire, pleading not guilty after he was charged. Ten of the California jurors thought Rinderknecht was not guilty, while two thought he was.
A woman who identified herself as juror number four spoke to media outlets after the mistrial was declared, saying there was “no proof,” adding that a retrial, which the government plans to do, would be a “waste of our American dollars.”
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Fox News Digital this could be a case of , but gave another reason why members of the jury may have been hesitant to convict Rinderknecht.
FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X
“This could be a case of jury nullification, or it could be a case where the jurors are blaming other people, or government, folks like Karen Bass, the Department,” he said. “In this particular case, it took nine months for the Department of Justice to arrest and charge Jonathan Rinderknecht. And during that time, many Angelenos who lost their homes, and there are 12 people who died, were pointing the finger at our local officials saying that they were not prepared for the high winds and ultimately the most devastating fire in California hit his.”
While the Rinderknecht deadlock may have been driven by anger at local officials, Rahmani said the Mangione case presents a far more direct nullification threat. Mangione is accused of outside a Manhattan hotel in December 2024, a killing that drew widespread public sympathy toward the alleged gunman.
With Rinderknecht’s retrial set for mid-October, around the same time get underway, Rahmani warned prosecutors have little time to prepare for what he called an unprecedented jury threat.
“I do think the prosecution should be concerned about jury nullification in the Luigi Mangione case. He’s probably the I’ve ever covered in my 25 years of practice,” Rahmani said. “And depending on the surveys that you read, anywhere from 10 to 20% of people believe that he was justified in what he did.“
He pointed out that Mangione just needs one person out of a 12 person jury to be sympathetic, and the numbers are in his favor.
“The reason why that’s an important number is that you just need one out of 12 jurors if you’re the defense. That’s 8%. Mangione is a good looking guy, he is smart, he comes from a wealthy family and there’s a line of people outside that courtroom every time he makes an appearance,” Rahmani said. “Both the office has to be very careful during jury selection and make sure that they remove any sympathetic Mangione jurors from the panel.”
LISTEN TO THE NEW ‘CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO’ PODCAST
Even if the feds and Manhattan District Attorney’s Office successfully remove sympathetic Mangione jurors from the panel, a different threat is still present, the former prosecutor said: stealth jurors.
Stealth jurors â those who hide their true biases to influence a verdict â could pose a serious problem for prosecutors in either of Mangione’s cases, Rahmani said.
“Stealth jurors are a huge problem and it is not easy to identify people that want to get on the panel. Most people don’t want to serve as jurors,” he said. “So when a juror actually wants to be on the panels, it’s one of the most difficult jobs of an
