LOS ANGELES — A federal judge declared a mistrial Thursday in the high-profile arson case of Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29, after jurors failed to reach a consensus on whether igniting 1,200 acres of the Palisades was, in fact, something society should “frown upon.”

After 13 hours of heated deliberations, the jury announced they were deeply divided—some members citing their “pro-fire bias” and others insisting that the flames “added a certain ambiance to the neighborhood.”

“Admittedly, the fire was devastating, but have you seen the sunsets since? Absolutely breathtaking,” said juror Brenda Dooling, who described herself as a “casual arson enthusiast” in the selection process. Fellow juror Anthony Rizzuto claimed the case was “too nuanced,” adding, “On one hand, destruction of property. On the other, free marshmallows. Is it really a crime if it’s delicious?”

Court observers noted the jury’s repeated requests for matches, sticks, and a s’mores kit, raising questions about their commitment to unbiased deliberation. Judge Malcolm Fennerty expressed frustration but remained optimistic. “I am confident we will eventually find twelve people who believe in consequences for fire-starting who also have no history of owning a lighter. It might just take a while.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kara Timmons stated she intends to retry the case, but only after “making absolutely certain all jurors have never enjoyed a bonfire or Instagrammed a candle.”