Nick Reiner’s defense attorney withdraws from case
Nick Reiner attends AOL Build Speaker Series at AOL Studios In New York on May 4, 2016 in New York City. (Laura Cavanaugh/FilmMagic)
(LOS ANGELES) — Nick Reiner did not enter plea when he returned to court on Wednesday for the alleged murders of his parents, renowned director Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Reiner.
The 32-year-old, who faces two counts of first-degree murder with the special circumstance of multiple murders, sat behind the glass, wearing a dark jumpsuit and sporting a buzz cut.
Nick Reiner’s defense attorney, Alan Jackson — who helped defend Karen Read in Massachusetts — withdrew from the case during Wednesday’s court appearance. Jackson is under a protective order to not talk about the case.
When asked if he agreed to delay the arraignment again, Nick Reiner said, “Uh, yeah, I agree.”
Nick Reiner is now assigned a public defender, Kimberly Green. He will return to court on Feb. 23 and remains in jail on no bail.
A Reiner family spokesperson said, “They have the utmost trust in the legal process and will not comment further on matters related to the legal proceedings.”
On Dec. 17, Nick Reiner made a brief first court appearance and waived the right to a speedy arraignment.
Since his last appearance, sources told ABC News that law enforcement and defense attorneys had been working to piece together Nick Reiner’s psychiatric and substance abuse history.
Nick Reiner has a documented history of addiction and substance abuse treatment, and friends have told investigators that his mental health had been deteriorating prior to the murders.
Rob Reiner and Michele Reiner were found stabbed to death in their Brentwood home on Dec. 14.
The night before the murders, Nick Reiner — who had been living on his parents’ property — got into an argument with Rob Reiner at a holiday party, and was seen acting strangely, sources told ABC News.
Nick Reiner was taken into custody in downtown Los Angeles hours after the bodies were discovered.
Rob and Michele Reiners’ other children, Jake and Romy Reiner, said in a statement last month, “Words cannot even begin to describe the unimaginable pain we are experiencing.”
“The horrific and devastating loss of our parents, Rob and Michele Reiner, is something that no one should ever experience. They weren’t just our parents; they were our best friends,” they said.
“We are grateful for the outpouring of condolences, kindness, and support we have received not only from family and friends but people from all walks of life,” Jake and Romy Reiner said. “We now ask for respect and privacy, for speculation to be tempered with compassion and humanity, and for our parents to be remembered for the incredible lives they lived and the love they gave.”
(WASHINGTON) — With the future of the prosecution of James Comey in doubt after a judge expressed alarm Monday about a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” in the case, lawyers for the former FBI director are due in federal court Wednesday to argue that the indictment be thrown out over concerns it’s the product of a vindictive prosecution.
Defense lawyers have argued that the prosecutors are engaging in an act of political retribution at the behest of President Donald Trump — who they allege “expressly sought charges regardless of the facts” — to punish Comey for his outspoken criticism of the president.
“Bedrock principles of due process and equal protection have long ensured that government officials may not use courts to punish and imprison their perceived personal and political enemies. But that is exactly what happened here,” Comey’s lawyers argued in court filings.
Amid an ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Trump abruptly fired Comey in 2017 and has repeatedly called for him to be criminally charged. A prosecutor handpicked by Trump brought an indictment against Comey in September, despite career prosecutors identifying critical flaws in the case and recommending against charges, ABC News previously reported.
“Objective evidence establishes that President Trump directed the prosecution of Mr. Comey in retaliation for Mr. Comey’s public criticisms and to punish Mr. Comey because of personal spite,” Comey’s attorneys argued.
Comey’s lawyers have argued that the case should be thrown out because Trump has “genuine animus” for the former FBI director, and the case itself would likely not have been brought absent the intervention of the president himself.
When Trump’s original pick to lead the United States Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia declined to bring charges against Trump’s adversaries, the president fired him and installed his former defense attorney with what sources said was the express mandate of bringing charges against Comey and others.
“When no career prosecutor would carry out those orders, the President publicly forced the interim U.S. Attorney to resign and directed the Attorney General to effectuate ‘justice’ against Mr. Comey,” Comey’s lawyers argued.
The two-count indictment against Comey claims that he lied to Congress when he testified that he never authorized other FBI officials to leak information to the press, despite allegedly directing a Columbia University professor to pass information to a New York Times reporter. Comey pleaded not guilty to the charges and denies ever authorizing anyone at the FBI to leak information on his behalf.
Prosecutors argue that Comey’s motion falls short of the high legal standard to prove a vindictive prosecution, claiming that he cannot prove the case was brought “solely to punish” him for his criticism of the president. Highlighting Comey’s role leading the FBI, prosecutors argued that him making false statements “implicates societal interests of the highest order. ”
“The Executive cannot be expected to ignore agency heads lying about official actions simply because they later become outspoken critics,” prosecutors argued.
Instead of directly refuting what defense lawyers say is “smoking gun evidence” — a Sept. 20 social media post in which Trump directly demanded that Attorney General Pam Bondi act “NOW!!!” to prosecute Comey — prosecutors have sought to infuse the record with emails and notes suggesting that Comey used a conduit to pass information to the press. Prosecutors have also argued that Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who made the unusual move to present Comey’s indictment before a grand jury on her own, does not have animus for Comey, even if the president does.
Prosecutors also pushed back on the claim that Trump’s social media posts prove that the prosecution is vindictive; instead, they argue that Trump’s social media posts alleging Comey committed crimes create “a years-long record of legitimate” reasons to bring a case against the former FBI director.
“The defendant primarily cites the President’s social-media posts. These posts reflect the President’s view that the defendant has committed crimes that should be met with prosecution. They may even suggest that the President disfavors the defendant. But they are not direct evidence of a vindictive motive,” prosecutors wrote.
Wednesday’s hearing comes as Halligan’s actions are attracting scrutiny from a magistrate judge who expressed alarm that a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” may have irreparably harmed the case. In a scathing ruling on Monday, Judge William Fitzpatrick said he identified at least two instances when Halligan made “fundamental misstatements of the law” during her grand jury presentation as well as raised concerns that Comey’s indictment may not have been fully presented to the grand jury.
“If this procedure did not take place, then the Court is in uncharted legal territory in that the indictment returned in open court was not the same charging document presented to and deliberated upon by the grand jury,” Fitzpatrick said.
Fitzpatrick ordered prosecutors to hand over audio recordings of the grand jury proceedings to defense lawyers, though U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff delayed that decision to hear objections from prosecutors. The dispute is expected to come up during Wednesday’s hearing in addition to the motion to dismiss.
(NEW ROADS, La.) — Two young girls were hospitalized after they were thrown from a Ferris wheel at a weekend harvest festival in Louisiana, authorities said.
The incident unfolded at around noon on Saturday at the Harvest Festival on False River in New Roads, about 40 miles northwest of Baton Rouge, according to Pointe Coupée Parish Sheriff Rene Thibodeaux.
Thibodeaux said both girls injured in the incident are under the age of 13. The sheriff said both were taken to hospitals, with one of them airlifted to a medical facility.
The conditions of the injured girls were not released.
“Our hearts go out to the families, and our prayers,” Thibodeaux said.
“The Louisiana Office of State Fire Marshal is actively investigating an incident in which two riders fell from a Ferris wheel ride at the New Roads Harvest Festival Saturday,” the Louisiana Office of State Fire Marshal said in a statement.
Witness Madison Fields told ABC affiliate station WBRZ in Baton Rouge that it appeared the bucket in which the girls were riding tipped upside down and dumped the girls out.
“It caught on to the wires, and then it tilted over, and the two girls fell out,” said Fields. “I heard like a body, just like something falling. I heard a loud boom.”
Fields said one of the girls appeared to fall face-first to the ground.
Fields told WBRZ that she had been planning to ride the Ferris wheel prior to the accident.
“It was sad and upsetting, like, because, what if that could have been me?” Fields said.
