Nick Reiner Case: 17 Years of Manipulation vs. Insanity Defense — Attorney Breaks Down the Strategy Podcast Por  arte de portada

Nick Reiner Case: 17 Years of Manipulation vs. Insanity Defense — Attorney Breaks Down the Strategy

Nick Reiner Case: 17 Years of Manipulation vs. Insanity Defense — Attorney Breaks Down the Strategy

Escúchala gratis

Ver detalles del espectáculo

OFERTA POR TIEMPO LIMITADO | Obtén 3 meses por US$0.99 al mes

$14.95/mes despues- se aplican términos.

True Crime Today's week in review dissects the Nick Reiner case — the legal mechanics of an insanity defense and the broken system that left Rob and Michele Reiner with no good choices.

Nick Reiner faces two counts of first-degree murder for stabbing his parents to death. The defense has signaled mental health will be central to the case. Sources confirm Nick was diagnosed with schizophrenia years ago and his medication was changed weeks before the killings. A sealed medical order is on file. An insanity plea is expected.

Defense attorney Bob Motta explained what that means in California. The state uses the M'Naghten standard — the defense must prove Nick didn't understand his actions or didn't know they were wrong. The burden is entirely on the defense team. Bob walked us through how these cases are built, what evidence moves juries, and where Nick ends up if the defense succeeds.

But here's the complication prosecutors will exploit: Nick's own admissions. On the Dopey podcast, he detailed seventeen years of gaming the system — staying sober just long enough to get released from rehab, convincing his parents to dismiss expert recommendations, engineering the arrangement that put him in their guesthouse. Can deliberate manipulation over two decades coexist with legal insanity?

Rob and Michele faced an impossible choice. Let Nick go back to the streets. Or keep him close and hope he didn't kill them. Rob reportedly told friends the night before he died he was terrified of his own son. California's mental health laws offered no third option. The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act requires imminent danger for involuntary commitment. By the time that standard is met, it's already too late.

#NickReiner #RobReiner #MicheleReiner #TrueCrimeToday #InsanityDefense #BobMotta #MentalHealth #CaliforniaLaw #WeekInReview #TrueCrime

Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISDOES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/

Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod

Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod

Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Todavía no hay opiniones