The jury in the trial about the origin of the devastating January 2025 fires in Los Angeles has reached a verdict.

Jonathan Rinderknecht, 30, faced three federal charges of destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and timber set afire for the January 2025 Palisades Fire.

The former Uber driver pleaded not guilty in October and faces up to 45 years in prison. Prosecutors argued that Rinderknecht intentionally and maliciously started a previous fire on a popular hiking trail known as Skull Rock on Jan. 1, called the Lachman Fire, that smoldered for days before metastasizing into the giant Palisades Fire six days later.

“On Jan. 1, 2025, Jonathan Rinderknecht started a fire on a hill in the Pacific Palisades,” prosecutor Danbee C. Kim said in closing statements. “He was angry all the time. He believed he was enslaved by the wealthy. He didn’t understand why the ‘rich losers’ and the ‘motherf----- at the top’ had it all.”

On Monday, defense attorney Steve Haney moved to dismiss the case, stating that the government had not shown sufficient evidence to convict his client. Multiple witnesses testified, Haney noted, that the Lachman and Palisades fires were two separate fires.

U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang rejected Haney’s motion after federal prosecutor Mark Williams countered that expert testimony contradicted Rinderknecht’s defense on multiple occasions.

In his closing statements, Haney told the jury that evidence produced by the prosecution raised significant doubt about his client’s actions on the night of the fire.

“This case is not about whether fire happened. It’s about cause and integrity,” he said.

“You might not like Jonathan at the end of this trial, but that doesn’t mean he’s guilty,” Haney said. “You’re not to convict a man if you don’t like him.”

Using surveillance footage, cellphone data and his own digital trail, including questions to ChatGPT about whether cigarettes can start wildfires, prosecutors placed Rinderknecht at the ignition point shortly before the Lachman Fire was reported. He had been driving for Uber that night and remained in the neighborhood after dropping off his last passenger. Rinderknecht knew it well, prosecutors said, as he and an ex-boyfriend once shared an home nearby.

The court heard recordings of Rinderknecht’s interview with investigators in which he sometimes sounded defensive, rambling and even manic. During one session, he asked why there weren’t cameras on the trail “where people can light” stuff up.

A passenger that rode with him on New Year’s Eve testified that he seemed erratic and upset. Macy Miller said she worried Rinderknecht would “drive us to the ocean” during her trip from the restaurant Nobu in Malibu to a friend’s home in Santa Monica. She told the court that it was the scariest Uber ride she’s ever taken.

Defense attorney Steve Haney argued that Rinderknecht was being scapegoated for the city’s failure to protect Pacific Palisades, where some 6,800 homes, businesses and structures were destroyed in what has become one of the largest and most expensive disasters in California’s history.

Haney repeatedly emphasized that no physical evidence tied Rinderknecht to the fire. Arson investigators did not find accelerants at the scene and no witnesses saw the Lachman Fire start, he argued. The scene was not secured for days after it had already been charred, raising the possibility that critical evidence was compromised or destroyed.

Haney argued that fireworks, not Rinderknecht, started the Lachman Fire on Jan. 1. Prosecutor Matthew O’Brien countered that the Palisades Fire, which started on Jan. 7, was a holdover from the New Year’s Day fire, which continued to smolder underground even after firefighters thought it was extinguished.

Haney pointed to multiple, frantic 911 calls by Rinderknecht shortly after the Lachman Fire started as evidence that his client did not want to destroy the neighborhood.

“Have you ever heard of an arsonist calling 911 multiple times and then staying at the scene,” Haney asked arson expert Edward Michael Nordskog on Monday.

“No, that’s a myth,” Nordskog replied.

Defense witness Joseph Araki, a retired electrical engineer who lives near the ignition site, told the court that he and his wife were in their living room on Jan. 1 when they suddenly felt an explosion coming from somewhere behind their home.

Araki said he waited a few minutes before getting up to check what had happened. He testified seeing smoke and four men coming from the area near the bang.

“They looked boastful, like they did something courageous,” he told the court last week.