By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a Los Angeles court hearing, Nick Reiner’s private attorney, Alan Jackson, resigned from the case, citing reasons he could not disclose. Despite the resignation, Jackson stated that based on the investigation, his client, Nick Reiner, is “not guilty of murder” under California law. The arraignment was postponed, and a public defender has been appointed. Reiner, held without bail since his arrest following his parents’ deaths, is awaiting further proceedings in the case.
Read the original article here
Attorney for Rob Reiner’s son resigns, a move that immediately sparks questions and speculation. But, what really has everyone talking is the statement, “pursuant to the law of California, Nick Reiner is not guilty of murder.” This statement hangs in the air, a bold declaration that seemingly defies the circumstances. The attorney, after weeks of investigation, is confident in the legal framework of California, but the context is crucial.
The resignation itself is a significant development. It points to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, which is likely related to the client’s financial situation. As the article points out, the lawyer realized he wouldn’t be paid. The son, who is the accused, presumably excluded himself from the will, making it impossible to pay the attorney’s fees. Thus, the need for a public defender is apparent. It’s a pragmatic explanation, and it highlights the realities of the legal system: Without payment, representation is hard to come by.
But what about the declaration of innocence under state law? This opens a crucial discussion about intent and mental state. The lawyer’s remarks strongly suggest that Nick Reiner committed the physical act but might not have possessed the *mens rea*, or the specific intent, required for a murder conviction under California law. This potentially sets the stage for a defense strategy focusing on the defendant’s mental state at the time of the alleged crime.
The possibility of a “not guilty by reason of insanity” verdict arises. This is a complex area, and it’s essential to understand that insanity is not simply a mental health condition. In California, for the defense to be effective, it would need to be proven that Nick Reiner couldn’t tell right from wrong, or comprehend his actions at the time of the killings. This is a very high legal bar, and the actions taken after the murders – fleeing the scene, cleaning up, and eventually turning himself in – make this defense challenging. They indicate an understanding of criminal liability.
However, the reported history of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, and potential drug use adds another layer of complexity. Schizophrenia, combined with substance abuse, can create volatile situations. It’s suggested here that the medication of Nick was changed, perhaps destabilizing him. The legal strategy will likely hinge on whether his mental state at the time of the crime qualifies for an insanity plea. If he were to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, the outcome would not be a complete release but a commitment to a state mental hospital for treatment.
The article explores the intricacies of the situation. Some opinions expressed suggest that Nick’s actions speak to his state of mind and understanding of the crime. The defense strategy seems to be focusing on the legal aspects of intent and diminished capacity. It also highlights the challenging nature of representing clients with severe mental illness.
It also touches on the practicalities of the case. The attorney may have been aware of a potential conflict of interest, particularly if he previously represented witnesses in the case. The idea is that it could undermine his ability to fairly defend his client. The situation, especially with the high-profile nature of the case, is fraught with sensitivities.
Ultimately, the focus is on the laws of California. The statement “pursuant to the laws of this state, Nick Reiner is not guilty of murder” does not necessarily equate to complete innocence. It could mean the legal definition of murder cannot be met. The trial, if it proceeds, will be the ultimate determinant. The public has to reserve judgment and await the details and evidence that emerge in court. The attorney’s statement, and his resignation, is a very lawyer thing to say.