Law&Crime Sidebar - Nick Reiner Not Guilty Of Murders

Episode Date: January 11, 2026

After acclaimed attorney Alan Jackson dramatically withdrew from the Nick Reiner murder case, his parting words—that Reiner is "NOT GUILTY"—become the biggest clue yet to the defense's strategy. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber and criminal defense attorney Seth Zuckerman analyze the hints toward an insanity defense, as well as the claims that there could be a conspiracy against Reiner. HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Nick Reiner is not guilty of murder. Print that. Print that. After withdrawing from representing accused killer, Nick Reiner, those were the parting words of his now former attorney Alan Jackson. But what did he not say? He didn't say Reiner didn't kill his father, Rob Reiner, and mother Michelle Singer.

No, he said he's not guilty. And that is very telling. That is very specific. That seems to be a very big clue as to what potential defense will be raised, maybe how this case may proceed, and whether, in fact, Nick Reiner is not guilty of murdering his parents, especially since it's now being reported, he may think he's a victim of a conspiracy. Let's talk about it. Welcome to Sidebar.

Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. I, on behalf of working Jackson, Quinn, and with Mr. Reiner's understanding and consent, we ask to withdraw as counsel's record based on the conversation that we've had in chambers and the explanation provided to the court in chambers. You feel that we have no choice at this juncture, but to withdraw as counsel has to be relieved. Just a wild legal week in the Nick Reiner story, and I paid very, very careful attention to the words that were used by his now former attorney, Alan Jackson, who withdrew from the case. And I'll play the whole thing for you because it raises a lot of questions about what we can actually expect now for Nick Reiner.

I mean, he's being represented by a public defender, not Alan Jackson. What does that mean? But this is the most important part, in my view, this is the most important part. Is it possible that we just got a major clue, a major confirmation as to his defense and whether he will, in fact, be found not guilty of murder? And we have just learned, by the way, that Reiner may in fact believe that he's the victim of a conspiracy. Yeah, so a lot of process here. Now, what are we talking about?

32-year-old Nick Reiner, of course, he has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder in connection with the apparent stabbing deaths of his parents, renowned director Rob Reiner and photographer and producer Michelle Singer. Reiner, they were found dead in their Brentwood, L.A. home back on December 14th. It is a brutal, brutal crime. and Nick Reiner faces these murder charges with special circumstances. So namely multiple murders, special allegations, right? There's a special allegation too that he allegedly personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, a knife.

And remember, when you're adding this, that could carry the death penalty if convicted, or at least life in prison without parole. So the stakes are incredibly high here. After his initial arraignment was delayed, it was rescheduled for January 7th this week. But instead of a standard arraignment, right, where a defendant is told what they're charged with, what their constitutional rights are, where they maybe enter a plea, the arraignment had to be delayed again. And this time, his attorney, well, now former attorney, acclaimed criminal defense attorney, Alan Jackson withdrew from representing him. That was a bombshell announcement. So Nick Reiner is now assigned a public defender, Kimberly Green, and we're going to talk more about what this means for him. We'll talk about why he maybe did this, why Alan Jackson did this.

But I go back to my central point here. I go back to what Alan Jackson said outside of court after that announcement. And I want you to listen very, very carefully to what he says. Remember, he's a lawyer. So the specific words that he used are deliberate. This, in my view, gives us a sense of what the actual legal defense may be and creates a conversation of whether, in fact, Reiner will be found not guilty of murder. Take a listen.

morning, I had to withdraw as Nick Reiner's counsel. Circumstances beyond our control, but more importantly, circumstances beyond Nick's control have dictated that sadly it's made it impossible for us to continue our representation of Nick. I'm legally and I'm ethically prohibited from explaining all the reasons why. I know that's a question on everybody's mind. We expect the public defender to step in. They've already been appointed and very capably protect Nick Reiner's interests as he moves forward through the system. But be clear, be very, very clear about this. My team and I remain deeply, deeply committed to Nick Reiner and to his best interests. In fact, we know, we're not just convinced. We know that the legal process will reveal

the true facts of the circumstances surrounding this case, Nick's case. You know, a lot's been printed of late over the last three weeks. A lot has been printed. Printed about Nick, printed about his family, printed about the circumstances. Speculation is in print. On December 15th in the early morning hours, I was in New York at the time and I got a call. Me and my team, we dropped everything. And for the last three weeks, we've devoted literally every waking hour to protecting Nick and his interests.

We've investigated this matter top to bottom, back to front. What we've learned, and you can take this to the bank, is that pursuant to the laws of this state, pursuant to the law in California, Nick Reiner is not guilty of murder. print that, print that. We wish him the very, very best moving forward. And that's all I have today. Nick Reiner is not guilty. Not that he didn't do it. Not that he didn't kill Robin Michelle. Not that he's innocent, right? Not that someone else did it. So that leaves some alternative possibilities on defenses and whether Nick Reiner will be found not guilty by a jury. And that is what I want to get into as well as why Jackson withdrew, what we can expect from the public defender,

what we can expect at the next scheduled arraignment for February 23rd. And to get into all this, I want to bring on Seth Zuckerman, criminal defense attorney. Seth, thank you so much for taking the time. Really, really appreciate it. A lot of layers here. First, okay, let's talk about the withdrawing of representation. When you hear Jackson basically say that he had no choice but to withdraw, what do you think happened?

Well, first, thanks for having me on. It's a pleasure to be here. today. I think two things. One, that there is an issue with legal fees and that whoever agreed to pay for Nick Reiner's initial appearance in the aftermath of his parents' death is no longer willing to fund the defense, or that there's some type of conflict that arose for Alan Jackson in which some of the witnesses are either former clients or people that he's unable to cross-examine. You know, one of the things that he said during his statement outside the courthouse, which you are attuned to and hit right on the head and we'll unpack those other issues in a moment, is that they've done a thorough investigation here. And only after the investigation did these issues arise. So to me, it's either a legal fee issue and there's no one who's willing to pay for Jackson's hefty legal fees in this case or that there's an actual conflict of interest and he has an ethical obligation not to proceed because of this conflict. And the crazy thing is we're never going to know. the actual reason, right? He's got an ethical obligation to not say anything further. Nick Reiner is

now a former client of his. Even what he said on the courthouse steps, it was probably a lot, but I understand why he did it. And now we're not going to know the reason he withdrew, but we know that he's now got a public defender. Well, there's a couple of points to that, because in a little later, I'm going to talk to you about potential witnesses in this case, because there's something that happened in the courtroom where we may have got an indication of that. And if this case progresses and certain people testify, I'm sure, you know, you know, sluze out. out there, maybe even us, we can look to see if they, these potential witnesses were ever represented in some capacity by Alan Jackson or his firm. So that's potential conflict of interest. I do want to

get into the idea of the fees and whether or not Jackson could be paid. There has been talk about, is it possible that Nick Reiner was uncooperative, that he's a difficult client? I don't get that sense because why say these were circumstances beyond his control unless you're really saying, look, he's mentally unwell. There's not much we can work with here. But then that would be a competency issue, right? I don't even think that this would be like, this has to be transferred to a different attorney. I can't handle it. So your thoughts on people who say, well, maybe it's Nick Reiner's being uncooperative in some fashion. I don't see that. I don't see that here either. Jackson's statement was very specific, as you said, right, is that circumstances outside of

Nick Reiner's control led to this. So, you know, there's not a conflict of strategy. There's not an inability to communicate with one another. So I've ruled out the fact that Jackson withdrew because of some kind of disagreement he had with Nick. That's clearly not based on his statement. In fact, if that was the reason, probably Jackson should not have given any press conference outside the courthouse at that time. So I've ruled that possibility out here. Okay.

So now let me lay into my thought. This is my thought. My first thought was, you're right, it could be a conflict of interest. But my first thought was there's an issue of payment that maybe can't pay Alan Jackson's fees. But maybe it's something more. So I remember he allegedly kills his parents so he's not getting an inheritance. But it always became a question of how can you?

you afford a high-powered attorney like Alan Jackson. But this is the big point. This goes to my other major theory. Maybe he can't afford the experts that he needs to testify in his trial. So this goes to my point. When Alan Jackson says that Nick Reiner is not guilty, right? Not that he didn't do it, not that he's innocent, not that somebody else did it, not guilty. My thought is he's talking about the insanity defense. And remember what Jackson said initially when he got the case a few weeks ago, He initially gets the case before any investigation told the media that there were, quote, very complex and serious issues associated with this case that needed some time to be examined. I thought you're talking about mental health issues.

Under California law, someone who commits the killing can still be found not guilty by reason of insanity if it can be proven by the defense that it is more likely than not that the defendant was legally insane when they committed the crime. So when they committed the crime, this person had a mental disease. or defect and because of that disease or defect was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of the act or was incapable of knowing or understanding the act was morally or legally wrong. And let me just add one more thing. I know I'm throwing a lot at you, but let me just add one more thing.

Just came out from TMZ. They are reporting that their sources tell them Nick Reiner may in fact know that he killed his parents, but that he's delusional, that he believes that this was some sort of conspiracy that has been orchestrated against him to have him arrested. So a lot of points here, Seth. First, let's start out, do you think I'm totally off base when Alan Jackson specifically says that Nick Reiner is not guilty that he's talking about mental health defense insanity?

I think that that you are not totally off base. It's actually not the first thing that came to my mind, but I think it's one of the real two possibilities here. And here's what we have, right? We've got this mental health defense or even substance abuse defense because we know that he's, struggled with substance abuse issues, where the defense will look into arguing that he had the diminished capacity and couldn't form the intent necessary for murder charges. So that's the first

possibility, and that's what you have discussed. But what actually came to my mind when Alan Jackson said that Nick is not guilty of murder and he was very specific of murder, is that there's a possible heat of passion defense, which would lead to a manslaughter charge and not a murder charge. What a heat of passion defense is that Nick experienced an uncontrollable, rage as a result of some type of argument he had with his parents. He didn't have time to cool off. This wasn't a premeditated murder in which he went over to his parents' house with the intent of killing them and thus arguing that he should only be charged with manslaughter, which carries a much less severe sentence in California than a murder charge. So when I heard what Nick,

sorry, Alan Jackson say he's not guilty of murder. I actually thought of the heat of passion defense and thought he's saying that this should be a manslaughter case and not a first-degree. murder case. That is something that we've talked about in a previous episode, too, about, like, we don't know the circumstances of what allegedly happened in that house, what happened in that bedroom, whether there was a fight of some kind, or whether there was defensive injuries or whether or not, you know, you're right, maybe the heat of passion. If you're talking about downgrading the case from first-degree murder to, let's say, second-degree murder, or let's say manslaughter, what potentially could he be looking at then? If we're talking about now life and prison on the

table or the death penalty, which seems to be. unlikely, but what would you be looking at potentially for, like, let's say, manslaughter? I mean, a manslaughter charge doesn't carry life. It does include the death penalty. It would involve a sentence, depending on the circumstances of somewhere in the 10 to 15 year range, potentially, which is much less than what he's facing on the murder charges. So which is why any experienced criminal defense attorney would look, you know, this isn't a case of whodunit, right? As you discussed earlier, you know, we know that there was something that happened in his home and that he specifically said he's not guilty of murder, not someone

else did this, he didn't kill his parents, he's completely innocent, but that there's some circumstances here, which shows that he's not guilty of murder. And it's really those two options, right? There's either the insanity defense that he couldn't form the intent based on his mental health and or substance abuse history, or this was a heat of passion case and it should be a manslaughter case. And I'll explore that a little bit more, but whether it's some sort of heat of passion or whether it is a mental health defense, the defense would need experts to testify to this. right? If this is an issue of funds and Alan Jackson saying, listen, he just can't pay. Maybe with a public defender, the state can help share the burden of some of the cost of these experts.

Am I off on that? I think a little bit because Alan Jackson fees would be 10 times the amount that an expert would cost, right? You know, experts are costly, but it's very unlikely an experienced criminal defense attorney like Alan Jackson, who's got a great client list, would withdraw from this case just because of an expert. issue. So I highly doubt that. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I think if there was a fee issue, it's all of the fees together, the legal fees and the expert fees that would have led him to withdrew if it's a fee issue. And by the way, real quick, such a high profile case, a lot at stake, a high-powered attorney wouldn't just take the case pro bono? Probably not.

You probably take it, well, you know, as we call low-bono. You know, it was basically a reduced fee. You know, it's good for publicity. It's good to be on a. a case like this. You know, there's also the reporting that I read yesterday in the New York Post that says Alan Jackson may have wanted out of the case because he would have been a pariah in the Hollywood community because he would have had to defend Nick Reiner, whereas his parents were beloved in the Hollywood community, as we believe there's going to be a bunch of people in the Hollywood community who are witnesses in the trial. And then he may have wanted off the case just because he didn't want to become a pariah and affect past and future clients. I'm not saying

that that's the case. I have no knowledge of that, but there was reporting in the New York Post about that last night. Then again, I mean, he just said publicly, Nick Reiner, who's accused of murdering his beloved I don't think that's the case. Again, I'm not saying that's the case. I don't think someone who believes in the Constitution as much as Alan Jackson does would get off of the case because it's an unpopular cause, but that's what the reporting is out there. So I want to just go back to whether or not there is something to the insanity defense, right? He couldn't even perceive what he was doing. He couldn't even perceive that what he did was legally or morally wrong or right. You know,

there's some complicating aspects to that because you would question, Why did he check into a hotel room early that night when apparently he had been living with his parents? What was he doing on surveillance cameras? Did he understand what had happened? But on top of what the TMZ had reported about, this idea of he may be thinking there was a conspiracy against him, the Los Angeles Times and KNBC said McReyner was receiving medical treatment for schizophrenia at the time of the deaths of his parents. And let me also add this, Harvey Levin from TMZ said, quote, sources with direct knowledge tell us a month before the murders, doctors change the meds Nick was taking for schizoaffective disorder.

Adding, when Alan Jackson was talking about why a jury would find him not guilty, what we're told is it has to do with changing those meds, which literally put him out of his head. Rob and Michelle were alarmed. They saw the change in his behavior. They knew what was going on, but they're not doctors. They don't know how to solve this problem. So Rob and Michelle were watching their son spiral,

and there was nothing they knew to do that would abate it. Now, talk to me about that. Seth. Yeah, I mean, that's certainly a viable defense and certainly possible. And based on the reporting, you know, obviously there's been a lot of reporting about what happened at the party at Conan O'Brien's house the night before and how Nick was acting. There's been reporting of how he was acting in the weeks leading up to his parents' death. I mean, that is certainly a viable defense. If he's been diagnosed with schizophrenia and a month before their killings, he had his medication change, right? If he's delusional or not of a sane mind, that is obviously a valid defense

that he couldn't form the intent to necessary for the murder charges. And that may be why Alan Jackson was so specific that he's not guilty of murder. What I've been looking for is what are the text messages show, right? Because if he's got insane and delusional text messages in the weeks leading up to his death, including to his parents, that would give me to big tell. What does the video surveillance show both before? I'm assuming there's video surveillance at the house. What is video surveillance at the hotel he's staying at?

You know, there's a lot of pieces of evidence that we don't know about that would give us clues as to his mental health at the time of the killing or even before that because that's what I would want to know as a defense attorney is how was he doing in the months and weeks leading up to his parents' death if I'm going to use this as a defense obviously if he's been treating with a psychiatrist and he's on medication that's obviously great evidence for the defense to show that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia this isn't something new that they're making up post his parents killings and that that is more of a viable defense at that point but I would like to see what evidence there are? What are the medical records show? And that's going to take a long time.

The other thing I'll point out is the fact that he's been in a mental health hospital since the date of his first scheduled arraignment is very telling to me. They are probably conducting a competency examination to check whether or not he's even competent to move forward. Obviously, they looked like they were ready to have the arraignment this past week before Alan Jackson would drew. But I'd be curious as to what's happening at that mental health hospital. Because if he's not fit to proceed, he would stay in that mental health hospital until and if he's ever found fit to proceed because this case could be delayed if he's not competent to understand the charges against him. Yeah, I mean, look, he's been staying at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility out in

LA and People Magazine says that the Los Angeles County Sheriff, a source says the inmates where he's located have significant mental health illnesses and need to be kept alone and away from any other people who are inmates. So just something to keep in mind. Okay, I want to ask about him now being represented by a public defender. So Kimberly Green actually told reporters outside of court this. I spoke to Mr. Reiner briefly this morning. He was understanding that there was going to be a change in council. We haven't had any in-depth conversations. Now, Lori Levinson, who's a professor at Loyola Law School, a former federal prosecutor, told the New York Times that Ms. Green had actually been one of her students, called her, quote, one of the best, smart, ethical.

added she knows the Los Angeles justice system. What do you make of the fact? Because I think sometimes people have misperceptions about what the public defender's office is and the quality of their representation. What do you think about the fact that now he's going to be, at least right now, if he's not, doesn't retain private counsel in the future. What should we be thinking about that and now he's represented by the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office? I mean, public defenders, some of them are some of the best lawyers that I've ever seen. Some of the most high-profile criminal defense attorneys started out as public defenders. So it's a very very very noble job. They truly care about their clients, truly care about the Constitution and the justice

system, and they fight hard. From what I've heard, Ms. Green has a great reputation. She's handled some very high profile and complicated cases before, and I would look for her to treat this no different. They may be different from a PR standpoint. She'll probably have less press conferences outside the courthouse and handle it slightly different as a public defender. But I would expect him to still get a vigorous defense, explore all of the options here that we've discussed, including the insanity defense, he had a passion defense, and investigate and find out, you know, what really is going on here. Los Angeles County public defender Ricardo Garcia also spoke outside of the courthouse this week. Take a listen. I want to say that on behalf the entire public defender's

office, we are incredibly sorry and understand the pain and suffering that the Reiner family is going through at this time, as well as the entire Los Angeles community. The public defender's office and the entire staff, our hearts at this time go out to the entire family. We hope that the community will also understand it. This is a challenging time for the entire legal process. We ask for your patience, your understanding as we navigate this process through the legal system and that we will be available as we can be to address your questions when appropriate. Thank you. Now, in a statement to the New York Times, I'll also mention that a spokesman for the Reiner family said, quote, they have the utmost trust in the legal process and will not

comment further on matters related to the legal proceedings. There is something else that I have to address. We mentioned it before. I think it's really important for this case. Something else that came up in court. I want to play you, Alan Jackson, speaking with the judge the other day. You know, we have a matter of housekeeping that I'd like to address in chambers in dealing with the 10 subpoenas that are outstanding. There are 10 current subpoenas that are outstanding. We would ask that that body attachments be issued and held for each of the 10. So, Seth, what is this about this body attachment for multiple potential witnesses? I mean, I thought if you asked for a body attachment, you're asking authorities to bring that

witness to court because maybe they feel that they don't want to appear. There's been a thought about could these people be from Conan O'Brien's party? Right, are you talking about celebrities? It was reported Nick had attended this party at Conan O'Brien's house the night before the killings in which he allegedly went around asking strange questions to guests, got into an apparent weird interaction with actor Bill Hader, then had some sort of loud argument potentially with his father. There was a source, by the way, that told people that Nick was freaking everyone out, acting crazy, kept asking people if they were famous. Family friends have reportedly said the fight was

overblown. But you wonder if these are the potential witnesses. You wonder if they don't want to appear for whatever reason. Apparently the legal representatives for two of the 10 subpoenaed parties, they were in court that day. There was an objection. A lawyer for one of the parties said, I don't see the necessity of having a court order against an individual in this circumstance. You had Judge Theresa McGonigal say, fair enough. She apparently issued a body attachment for those who do not have legal representation in court, hold it there for the next hearing on February 23rd. But she also indicated that the list of these subpoenaed people is going to remain sealed.

So you do wonder, are we on the right track? Are we talking about people at Conan O'Brien's party? Yeah, I mean, we're probably talking about people that the defense, or prosecutors think are important witnesses and need to be subpoenaed because they're not willing to come in voluntarily to give their version of the events. You know, these body attachment warrants are, you know, when they're seeking a witness to come in and the witness is not being compliant, right? And sometimes that happens just as not even because the witness is not being compliant, but in a high-profile case, they want to dot their eyes and cross their teas and make sure that

everything is ordered by the court. But that's to bring a person before the court who has information. It's similar to a subpoena. Yeah. By the way, Us Weekly did a breakdown of who may be called his witnesses. This is just speculation. So aside from other people at the party, maybe actor Bill Hater, who apparently had this encounter that night with Nick where he allegedly told Nick that he was having a private conversation with somebody when Nick allegedly tried to butt in, to which Nick reportedly stared at him, walked off. Us Weekly also mentions Billy Crystal, Larry David. They reportedly visited the Reiner home after the killings.

They also list comedian Eric Idle, who took to X that he said he spoke to Rob Reiner for over an hour the night of the killings. You have Romy Reiner, so Nick's sister, the daughter here. She was the one who reportedly found her father's body. There's Jake Reiner, Nick's brother. Do you think that Us Weekly could be on the right track about potential witnesses, potential players in this case? I do. I think that those are probably some of the prime witnesses. Certainly Nick's siblings, his sister, Romi, who found their parents, their brother, you know, all of the talk about what was happening in the lead up to the events. You know, they may be beneficial witnesses to

the defense as well, right? Because if they're able to talk about the delusional portion of how Nick was acting in the lead up to killing his parents, they may be beneficial to the defense. So I think that those witnesses could go either way. And I think the same thing for some of Rob Reiner's closest friends. You mentioned Billy Crystal and Larry David. You know, those are people who were not only at the home when the body was found. That's really not what their testimony would be relevant to. It's about what was Rob telling them in the weeks and months leading up to his death about their interactions with their son? And what were they observing? If they're good friends, what were they observing when they saw Nick come over anytime they went to Rob Reiner's house? So it's not

just about what happened post death, but what happened pre-death that they observed. And they may be witnesses that the prosecution may want to call because these people may say, well, you know what? They substantiate the mental health defense and the insanity defense or the heated passion defense. So there's a lot that needs to be evaluated. He hasn't even been arraigned yet. But as we, I think that they're on the right path as to some of the important witnesses. And do you think it's the potential celebrity aspect why the list is being sealed? Yes, for sure. I think it's a celebrity aspect of the case, right? That it's such a high profile case and they don't want these names to go out there because, you know, TMZ and all the other

outlets will then go and stake out outside these people's homes. So even if they are not celebrities that are on the list, they're trying to protect everybody because this has become such a high profile case. What can we expect from maybe his actual arraignment on February 23rd? I mean, he remains locked up right now with no bail. If this actually happens, if there's not another curveball of some kind, what can we expect from his arraignment on February 23rd? I mean, I would expect his arraignment to be pretty straightforward, right? He'll plead not guilty to the charges. And then they'll set a date and discovery will start. There may be some pretrial hearings that need to occur. But I think that it would be a pretty standard plea of not guilty and then the case will

move forward. The only other thing that could happen is if there is more mental competency examinations that need to occur, that would lead to another further delay if his public defender seeks to have him further evaluated as whether he's fit to proceed with the case. Would he have to at that point say, hey, not guilty by reason of insanity or can he reserve that for later? Yeah, you just say not guilty. And then the defense will eventually serve their insanity defense on the prosecutors in the court once they've had them evaluated and decided that that's the defense that they're going to go with. But at the arraignment, he just pleads not guilty. And the defense that you intend to present doesn't need to be discussed to the court at that point.

Seth Zuckerman, thank you so much for taking the time going back and forth with me on some of these theories, some of these ideas that I made. maybe have. And we'll see what progresses. But Seth, really, really appreciate you taking the time. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. You can follow me on X or Instagram. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.