230 trillion won.

It's hard to grasp such a large number.

This is the estimated property damage caused by the California Palisades wildfire last year.

7,000 homes were burned, marking it as one of the worst wildfires in LA history.

Naturally, people wanted to find the culprit and punish them by sending them to prison. However, the recent trial ended with neither a guilty nor a not guilty verdict.

The jury was unable to reach a conclusion, leading the court to declare a 'mistrial.'

Watching this news made me think.

"Isn't it time to bring in a detective?"

It's that difficult of a case to judge.

Imagine for a moment that you are a juror.

The prosecution made the following claim.

The defendant, Jonathan Lindnerknecht, intentionally set the fire out of anger towards society and the wealthy on January 1st last year on a hiking trail.

The initial fire was extinguished. But the problem starts here.

The prosecution argued that embers, which they thought were extinguished, remained for a staggering six days, and with strong winds, they reignited, ultimately causing the Palisades wildfire.

If this claim is true, the defendant could face up to 45 years in prison.

On the other hand, the defense has a different story. First, there is no physical evidence that the defendant directly started the fire. There are no CCTV recordings or clear footage.

In fact, the defendant called 911 immediately after the fire. Would a real arsonist report themselves?

Additionally, the defense argued that there is no solid evidence that the large wildfire six days later was caused by the remaining embers.

They also suggested that the fire could have been started by fireworks.

Now, think of yourself as a juror. Hearing the prosecution's story raises enough doubt.

However, in the American criminal justice system, you cannot convict based on "it seems likely."

This is where the jury divided.

10 not guilty, 2 guilty.

A full ten jurors concluded that "the prosecution did not prove their case sufficiently." In the U.S., a jury's decision must be unanimous.

If even one person disagrees, neither a guilty nor not guilty verdict can be reached. Ultimately, the trial must start over.

The prosecution has announced that they will conduct a retrial in October.

Could a single ember survive for six days and cause a massive wildfire?

However, in court, mere possibility is not enough. They must prove that the ember was indeed the cause of that fire.

In the meantime, someone could have discarded a cigarette. It could have been fireworks. There could have been another small fire.

230 trillion won in damages occurred, yet ending with "we don't know" is hard to accept.

But conversely, from the court's perspective, they cannot sentence someone to 45 years without solid evidence.

They could create an unjust scapegoat.

Thus, this trial is not just about one arsonist.

It could set an important precedent for how criminal responsibility is recognized in future wildfire cases in the U.S.

If a guilty verdict is reached in the retrial, the scope of responsibility for "embers that remained and reignited" could significantly widen.

Conversely, if a not guilty verdict is confirmed, the prosecution will need to prepare much stronger scientific evidence for similar cases in the future.

Honestly, I think I would have struggled if I were sitting on the jury.

What would you do?

The prosecution's claim that "an ember survived for six days causing 230 trillion won in damages."

Can you truly be confident that such evidence is enough to sentence one person to a maximum of 45 years?

This case will likely remain one of the most challenging wildfire liability disputes discussed in the U.S. legal community long after the retrial concludes.