To the editor: I hope the general public reads articles in regards to the Nick Reiner case with a grain of salt, significantly when “specialists” give their out-of-court opinions on the psychological state of the accused (“Nick Reiner’s psychological state at middle of homicide case: Contained in the looming authorized combat,” Dec. 24). For instance, a former prosecutor was quoted on this article as saying, “If you happen to’re succesful sufficient to have an argument together with your mother and father at a Christmas social gathering … you aren’t insane.” This isn’t true.
Arguing with somebody previous to killing them doesn’t show the accused was “sane” on the time of the killing. Jury directions require deeper concerns when madness is alleged.
As an lawyer within the Public Defender’s Workplace for 35 years, I dealt with a number of household homicide instances. I by no means dominated out madness simply because there existed information of an argument/dispute between the events shut in time to the murder. In my expertise, this proved to be a profitable strategy.
The article quotes one other former prosecutor opining that jurors may even see the madness protection as an excuse and imagine a discovering of madness will end result within the accused being relieved of obligation. This, too, misses one thing necessary. The jury may be instructed {that a} discovering of madness ends in placement in a locked state psychological well being hospital. Launch is uncommon for a person who dedicated a killing.
Household homicide instances are heartbreaking for everybody, together with attorneys on either side. Out-of-court statements by specialists and attorneys not concerned within the case may be deceptive. This case ought to be tried within the courtroom, not within the press.
Anne Gillam, Pasadena
This author is a retired lawyer for the Los Angeles County Public Defender.
