Nick Reiner’s former lawyer Alan Jackson says he’s “not really concerned” with whether his potential client is guilty

Nick Reiner’s former attorney Alan Jackson shares how he approaches his client and his high-profile cases.

Jackson, 61, appeared on Kelly Ripa’s “Let’s Talk Off Camera” on Tuesday, January 13, and talked about how lawyers craft defenses for potentially guilty clients.

Ripa, 55, asked Jackson about his decision to withdraw from Reiner’s case on Jan. 7, just as Reiner’s arraignment began. Reiner is charged with murder in the stabbing deaths of his parents, Rob Reiner and Michelle Singer Reiner. Nick will now be represented by a public defender.

Jackson explained to Ripa that there are “some things I just can’t reveal” regarding the change of attorney. However, his team will “always work in (Nick’s) best interests.” Jackson added, “I want him to have the most robust defense possible, and I know he will do that in the hands of the public defender’s office.”

Mr. Ripa then asked Mr. Jackson how he would argue a case that could be deemed “indefensible.”

“There are very few things in the law that are indefensible,” Jackson said. “There’s a reason for that. I never approach a case as if I’m just defending an individual.”

“We are defending the Constitution,” the prominent lawyer explained. “We’re defending a cause. We’re defending the foundation that this country was built on in terms of our justice system.”

Jackson noted that the U.S. justice system gives people a “God-given right” to freedom that is “built into the fabric of our country.” But he said the judicial system could deprive people of their freedom, something he said was “almost unthinkable”.

“There are certain circumstances where it is absolutely appropriate,” he clarified. “If you do it perfectly, there’s no problem.”

He went on to say that with this approach, “the word indefensible never comes up,” so “we’re not concerned about who the person is.”

“If the government doesn’t get it right, it’s completely defensible to whoever the other party is,” he said.

Jackson acknowledged that mental health is a factor in certain situations (he clarified that he was speaking generally, not about Nick’s case).

He then proposed the idea that sick people should not be punished for being sick. “When someone has an epileptic seizure and loses consciousness or gets into a car accident and something happens and people die, we don’t punish it as a crime.”

Want the latest crime coverage? Sign up for PEOPLE’s free True Crime newsletter for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases.

“In this country we do not punish. We are very civilized. We try to be civilized,” he said, before adding that the justice system would punish criminal acts “when there is an element of intentionality”.

“The system is built to respond to that and deal with that,” Jackson explained, referring to the idea of ​​not guilty by reason of insanity. He said it was for defendants who suffer from mental illness and are “incapable of forming intentions” and “do not understand the nature or quality of (their) actions.”

But when Jackson continued, Ripa asked him outright. “Have you ever had a case where you were like, ‘Well, I think this person is probably guilty, but I’m going to ignore that wholeheartedly.'”

“I don’t like to think of it as blinding,” he previously stated, admitting, “The answer is no.”

“I usually don’t make a verdict one way or the other about whether a client is guilty or not guilty, because that’s not important to me,” he said. “I don’t really care.”

“I value the Constitution,” he reiterated. “What I care about is whether the government did the right job.”

If you or someone you know needs mental health help, text “STRENGTH” to the Crisis Text Line (741-741). Connect with a certified crisis counselor.