At a Glance
- Alan Jackson, ex-lawyer for Nick Reiner, said he never views any case as “indefensible”
- Jackson withdrew on Jan. 7, minutes into Reiner’s arraignment for the alleged murders of his parents Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner
- Why it matters: The interview offers a rare look at how high-profile attorneys separate personal feelings from constitutional duty
Prominent trial attorney Alan Jackson appeared on Kelly Ripa’s Let’s Talk Off Camera podcast on Jan. 13 and spelled out the philosophy that drives his approach to headline-making cases-including his recent exit from representing Nick Reiner.
From Counsel to Public Defender
Nick Reiner now faces charges for the stabbing deaths of his parents, director Rob Reiner and producer Michele Singer Reiner. Jackson, who had represented him, stepped away on Jan. 7 as the arraignment began. Reiner will be defended by a public defender moving forward.
Jackson told Ripa, 55, that he is barred from disclosing specifics about the change. “Certain things I simply can’t divulge,” he said, adding that his team will “always be committed to Nick’s best interests.” He expressed confidence that the public defender’s office will provide “the most robust defense” possible.
“Indefensible” Doesn’t Exist
Ripa pressed Jackson on how he defends clients who appear guilty. The attorney, 61, pushed back at the premise.
“There’s very little in the law that’s indefensible,” he stated. “I never approach a case like I’m just defending an individual. 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.”
Jackson framed liberty as a “God-given right” woven into the nation’s fabric. He called removing that liberty “almost unthinkable,” though “absolutely appropriate” when done correctly.
Intent, Illness, and the Law
The conversation turned to mental health’s role in criminal defense. Jackson, speaking generally, not about Reiner, noted that society does not punish sickness.
“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.”
He explained that punishment hinges on intent. The “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense exists for defendants whose mental illness bars them from forming intent or understanding their conduct.
The “Razzle-Dazzle” Question
Ripa asked the blunt question: “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 answered, “No,” adding, “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. I don’t really care. I care about the Constitution. I care about whether or not the government got their job right.”
Key Takeaways
- Jackson believes every defendant, regardless of alleged acts, deserves a vigorous defense grounded in constitutional rights
- Mental state and intent, not public opinion, determine legal culpability
- His withdrawal from Reiner’s case leaves the accused under new public-defender representation as the murder case proceeds
