Letters to the Editor: ‘Expert’ opinions on Nick Reiner’s legal battle could be misleading

To the editor: I hope the public reads articles about the Nick Reiner case with a grain of salt, particularly when “experts” give their out-of-court opinions on the mental state of the accused (“Nick Reiner’s mental state at center of murder case: Inside the looming legal fight,” Dec. 24). For example, a former prosecutor was quoted in this article as saying, “If you’re capable enough to have an argument with your parents at a Christmas party ... you are not insane.” This is not true.

Arguing with someone prior to killing them does not prove the accused was “sane” at the time of the killing. Jury instructions require deeper considerations when insanity is alleged.

As an attorney in the Public Defender’s Office for 35 years, I handled multiple family murder cases. I never ruled out insanity just because there existed facts of an argument/dispute between the parties close in time to the homicide. In my experience, this proved to be a successful approach.

The article quotes another former prosecutor opining that jurors may see the insanity defense as an excuse and believe a finding of insanity will result in the accused being relieved of legal responsibility. This, too, misses something important. The jury can be instructed that a finding of insanity results in placement in a locked state mental health hospital. Release is rare for an individual who committed a killing.

Family murder cases are heartbreaking for everyone, including attorneys on both sides. Out-of-court statements by experts and attorneys not involved in the case can be misleading. This case should be tried in the courtroom, not in the press.

Anne Gillam, Pasadena
This writer is a retired attorney for the Los Angeles County Public Defender.