Nick Reiner’s former lawyer, Alan Jackson, broke down what happens when an individual pleads insanity.
“There’s little or no within the law that’s indefensible and there’s a reason for that because I never approach a case like I’m just defending a person,” Jackson said while appearing on the Tuesday, January 13, episode of Kelly Ripa’s SiriusXM podcast “Let’s Talk Off Camera,” just six days after the attorney withdrew from Reiner’s legal team.
“Each time I approach a case on the defense side, I walk into the case and my entire team, they’re all trained to walk into the case knowing full well that we’re defending something larger than the person,” he continued. “We’re defending the structure, we’re defending an idea, we’re defending the concept, the inspiration of which this country was built by way of its justice system.
He added, “We don’t live in a system through which you kind of ready, fire, aim. You think that anyone did something, so that you throw them in jail and somewhere down the road you may give them a trial. It’s not the best way our system works.”
Jackson was initially hired as Nick’s attorney within the case of the murder of his parents, Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner. Nick was arrested after the couple were found dead of their Brentwood, California, home after affected by apparent stab wounds. Rob was 78 while Michele was 70.
Earlier this month, Jackson announced during Nick’s hearing that he was stepping down from the case. A public defender has been chosen as his alternative. Jackson has stated on multiple occasions he’s ethically prohibited from revealing the explanation why he exited the case.
“I’m legally and I’m ethically prohibited from explaining all of the the explanation why, I do know that’s a matter on everyone’s mind,” he told reporters outside the courthouse. “We expect the general public defender to step in, they’ve already been appointed and really rigorously protect Nick Reiner’s interests as he moves forward through the system.”
On Tuesday, the lawyer explained that he takes an individual’s civil liberties “very seriously.” He also broached the subject of defending a one that has struggled with mental health issues or a medical condition. (Nick, who had publicly struggled with mental health and substance abuse issues, was taken off suicide watch on January 5 following his arrest.)
“Irrespective of who the person is, if the federal government doesn’t get it right. And in certain circumstances, there are mental health issues. I’m not talking about Nick’s case, just on the whole,” he shared. “Such as you said, kind of the decision of the questions was what are some defenses which might be available to residents, just any citizen. One thing we don’t do is we don’t punish the sick for being sick.”
Jackson explained that as individuals who live in a civilized society, it’s crucial that somebody is “only punish criminal conduct where there’s an intent element.”
“If you may have a mental illness, such that you just cannot form an intent, you don’t understand the character and quality of your conduct, etcetera, then a system is built to accommodate that and to deal with that and that’s the not guilty by reason of insanity defense,” he said. “So in that circumstance, numerous people have talked about it, Kelly, what does that mean? ‘Oh, does that mean you go to a psychiatrist for 10 mins and you then’re released?’ No it doesn’t mean that in any respect. The system is built to treat that.”
In keeping with Jackson, meaning an individual goes to “a state mental hospital” and stays there until the “sickness or that illness is resolved.”
Ripa then asked if that is identical logic a lawyer would use if their client was trying to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Jackson then explained the method specifically in California.
Nick Reiner’s former attorney, Alan Jackson, doesn’t imagine his one-time client needs to be convicted of first-degree murder. “I’m legally and I’m ethically prohibited from explaining all of the the explanation why, I do know that’s a matter on everyone’s mind,” Jackson told reporters on Wednesday, January 7, after stepping down from the case. “We expect the general public defender […]
“The procedure is as follows, you enter the plea, you continue to undergo a guilt phase, which is just standard trial on whether or not the defendant is chargeable for and responsible for, legally responsible for the death of anyone else or the conduct in query,” he said. “Provided that the jury comes back unanimously as guilty, you then go to a penalty phase which that penalty phase can include an NGI in other words the jury then decides, separate part in a bifurcated proceeding, the identical jury decides whether or not you’re sane or insane on the time of the conduct for which you’re convicted.”
Kelly shared that she “didn’t realize that” an individual has to “undergo a whole trial” and Jackson clarified that it’s “two entire trials.”
Jackson also reiterated why he can’t give more insight into why he decided to exit the case.
“Everybody’s got that very same looming query, and I’m compelled due to legal standards and ethical obligations; there’s certain things I simply can’t expose, Kelly,” he said on Tuesday. “When it comes to why there was a change in counsel, why we stepped away and the general public defenders office stepped in and I’ll reiterate what I said within the press conference, which is, my team, me personally and my team, remain completely and utterly committed to Nick’s best interest. We all the time will probably be committed to his best interests. I would like nothing but one of the best for him and I would like him to get probably the most robust defense that he possibly can get. And I do know he’ll within the hands of the general public defender’s office.”