Nick Reiner’s Former Lawyer Says Guilt Doesn’t Matter
Nick Reiner's murder case has taken another unexpected turn, not in court, but in conversation.
His former defense attorney, Alan Jackson, is now openly explaining how he approaches clients facing the most serious accusations imaginable.
Speaking candidly on a podcast, Jackson addressed guilt, justice, and why some cases are never as indefensible as the public assumes.
Nick Reiner Case Raises New Questions About Legal Defense
The legal spotlight returned to Nick Reiner after his former attorney, Alan Jackson, discussed the philosophy that guides his work.
Jackson appeared on "Let’s Talk Off Camera," hosted by Kelly Ripa, where he was asked directly about his brief involvement in Nick’s case.
Reiner is charged with murder in the stabbing deaths of his parents, Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.
Jackson withdrew from the case just moments into Nick’s arraignment, a move that sparked intense speculation.
Addressing the decision, Jackson told Ripa there are “certain things” that he “simply can't divulge.”
Still, he emphasized that his team would “always be committed to [Nick’s] best interests.”
He added per PEOPLE, “I want him to get the most robust defense that he possibly can get. I know he will, in the hands of the public defender's office.”
Why Nick Reiner’s Lawyer Walked Away From the Case
Alan Jackson avoided detailing what led to his withdrawal, but he made clear that stepping aside did not mean abandoning concern for Nick’s future.
His comments suggested a careful balance between professional boundaries and ethical responsibility, particularly in a case that has captured national attention.
The former prosecutor turned defense attorney framed his role not as a moral judge, but as a guardian of process.
As public fascination with the Reiner case grows, Jackson’s remarks reframed the narrative away from personal guilt and toward systemic fairness.
His appearance offered a rare glimpse into how high-profile defense lawyers think when public outrage collides with constitutional rights.
The Philosophy That Shapes Nick’s Defense Debate
When Kelly Ripa pressed Alan Jackson on how he handles cases that might seem impossible to defend, his response was immediate.
“There's very little in the law that's indefensible,” he said. “There's a reason for that. I never approach a case like I'm just defending an individual.”
Jackson expanded on that idea, saying, “We're defending the Constitution. We're defending an idea. We're defending the foundation on which this country was built in terms of its justice system.”
He explained that liberty is a “God-given right” that is “built into the fabric of our country,” making its removal an extraordinary act.
Taking someone’s freedom, he said, is an “almost unthinkable” step.
“There are certain circumstances in which it's absolutely appropriate,” Jackson clarified. “I don't have a problem with that, if it's done perfectly.”
When Guilt Becomes Secondary In The Justice System
Alan Jackson stressed that his focus is never on who the defendant is.
“I don’t worry about who the person is,” he said, explaining why “the word indefensible never comes up.”
He added, “It's completely defensible, no matter who the person is, if the government doesn't get it right.”
The attorney also discussed mental health in a broader legal context, clarifying that he was not speaking specifically about Nick Reiner’s case.
He explained that illness changes how the justice system should respond.
“If someone has an epileptic seizure, and they go unconscious and God forbid they're in a traffic accident and something happens, and people lose their lives, we don't punish that as a crime,” he said.
“We don't punish in this country. We're very civilized. We try to be civilized,” Jackson continued, before noting that punishment applies “where there's an intent element.”
Nick Reiner And The Question Of Guilt Versus Process
As the conversation deepened, Kelly Ripa asked Jackson a blunt question about defending clients he might privately believe are guilty.
“Have you ever taken a case where you're like, 'Hmm, I think this one's probably guilty, but I'm gonna razzle-dazzle it?'”
Jackson rejected the premise outright. “I don't like to think of it as razzle-dazzle,” he said, before confirming, “the answer is no.”
He went further, making his most striking admission. “I normally don't make pronouncements one way or the other, about the guilt or innocence of my client, because it doesn't matter to me,” he said. “I don't really care.”
What does matter, he explained, is principle. “I care about the Constitution,” Jackson reiterated. “I care about whether or not the government got their job right.”
As Nick Reiner’s case continues through the legal system, Jackson’s comments are sure to ignite debate about justice, accountability, and whether guilt should ever outweigh the rules designed to protect everyone.
What's Your Reaction?
Like
0
Dislike
0
Love
0
Funny
0
Angry
0
Sad
0
Wow
0
