Nick Reiner’s Ex-Lawyer Alan Jackson Shocks With Blunt Take on Guilt: ‘I Don’t Really Care’

Nick Reiner’s former defense attorney, powerhouse lawyer Alan Jackson, is opening up about how he handles high-profile — and potentially damning — cases, and his brutally honest philosophy is turning heads.

Speaking on Kelly Ripa’s Let’s Talk Off Camera on Tuesday, Jan. 13, Jackson, 61, made it clear that whether a client is actually guilty isn’t what keeps him up at night.

“I don’t really care,” Jackson said flatly.

The veteran attorney, who briefly represented Reiner before abruptly withdrawing from the case earlier this month, explained that his true loyalty lies elsewhere — not with the individual defendant, but with the Constitution itself.

Why Jackson Walked Away From Nick Reiner’s Case

Ripa, 55, pressed Jackson on his sudden decision to step aside just moments into Reiner’s Jan. 7 arraignment. Reiner is charged with murder in the fatal stabbing of his parents, filmmaker Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner. He is now being represented by a public defender.

Jackson declined to share specifics, saying there were “certain things” he simply couldn’t disclose. Still, he emphasized that his team remains committed to Reiner’s best interests.

“I want him to get the most robust defense possible,” Jackson said, adding that he believes Reiner will receive that through the public defender’s office.

‘Indefensible Never Comes Up’

When Ripa asked how he defends cases that many would consider “indefensible,” Jackson pushed back on the idea entirely.

“There’s very little in the law that’s indefensible,” he said. “That word never comes up.”

According to Jackson, he never approaches a case as defending a person.

“We’re defending the Constitution,” he explained. “We’re defending the foundation of the justice system.”

He stressed that while the U.S. justice system has the power to strip someone of their liberty — a move he called “almost unthinkable” — it must be done perfectly.

“I don’t have a problem with it if it’s done right,” he said. “But if the government doesn’t get it right, then it’s completely defensible — no matter who the person is.”

Mental Health, Intent — and Where the Line Is Drawn

Speaking generally and not about Reiner’s case, Jackson acknowledged that mental illness can play a critical role in criminal defense.

“We don’t punish people for being sick,” he said, offering the example of someone suffering a seizure that leads to a fatal accident. “That’s not a crime.”

He explained that the justice system is designed to punish criminal conduct only when intent is present, pointing to defenses such as not guilty by reason of insanity — when a defendant cannot form intent or understand their actions.

‘No Razzle-Dazzle’

Ripa bluntly asked if Jackson has ever taken a case where he thought the client was probably guilty but planned to “razzle-dazzle” his way through it.

Jackson didn’t hesitate.

“The answer is no,” he said. “I don’t like to think of it that way.”

He added that he rarely makes declarations about a client’s guilt or innocence — because, to him, it simply doesn’t matter.

“What I care about is whether or not the government did its job correctly,” Jackson said. “That’s it.”