High-Profile Defense Attorney Mark Geragos Explains Why Nick Reiner Is Likely Incompetent To Stand Trial

High-profile defence attorney Mark Geragos has suggested that Nick Reiner's competency to stand trial should be formally evaluated as he faces charges of murdering his parents, Rob and Michele Reiner, in Los Angeles.

Speaking on the Brian Entin Investigates podcast on 10 August 2026, the veteran lawyer said determining the defendant's current mental fitness would likely become a major legal issue before the criminal case can proceed much further.

To recall, the murder suspect remains in custody after pleading not guilty to two counts of first-degree murder in connection with the deaths of his parents. The comments came after reports emerged detailing how Reiner was disciplined following an April 27 incident at the Los Angeles County Twin Towers Correctional Facility, where he allegedly became 'extremely hostile' towards jail deputies.

Reports citing unnamed sources have also raised concerns about Reiner's mental and physical condition while incarcerated, although those accounts have not been independently verified by IBTimes UK. One source claimed that 'Nick no longer looks like Nick' and was deteriorating while taking medication, adding that he appeared visibly unwell with 'very sunken eyes'.

Further details reported by TMZ founder Harvey Levin painted a similarly grim picture, with claims that Reiner has appeared almost 'childlike' in jail and questions being raised about whether he is currently competent to stand trial.

During the podcast discussion, journalist Brian Entin also referenced reports of Reiner's history of drug addiction and schizophrenia, raising questions over whether his defence team could eventually pursue an insanity defence.

Assessing Competency Versus Legal Insanity

Addressing that speculation, Geragos emphasised that there is a significant legal distinction between a clinical diagnosis of mental illness and the strict statutory standards required for legal insanity. He explained that regardless of what kind of diagnosis a person has, an insanity defence requires examining whether the defendant understood the nature or wrongfulness of their conduct at the time of the alleged crime.

In contrast, legal competency focuses entirely on the defendant's present capacity to understand court proceedings and assist their lawyers in preparing a defence. Geragos said that, if he represented Reiner, he would raise doubts about his competency and seek an evaluation before proceeding further with the case.

Although medical authorities can sometimes treat defendants found incompetent in an effort to restore their competency, Geragos warned that such progress can be unstable. Returning defendants to county jail conditions can lead to further psychological deterioration, creating what he described as a recurring cycle that he has witnessed in courts for decades.

Strategic Moves for the Defence Counsel

Reflecting on the disturbing nature of the alleged crimes, Geragos described patricide cases as among the most difficult legal cases to handle, saying that 'when the parent gets killed by the child, it is just awful stuff'.

He suggested that Reiner's lawyers could eventually consider a plea of NGI, which stands for not guilty by reason of insanity, allowing them to explore factors including his reported drug use and mental-health history.

However, Geragos pointed out that beginning with a standard not guilty plea ensures the defence team does not prematurely reveal its full trial strategy to prosecutors.

A competency assessment and an insanity defence also address separate legal questions: competency concerns Reiner's ability to participate in proceedings now, while an insanity defence would concern his mental state at the time of the alleged killings.

'If I was his lawyer, I would be declaring a doubt as to competency,' Geragos concluded, offering his assessment of how experienced defence counsel might approach a case involving reported psychiatric concerns.Whether Reiner's lawyers ultimately raise that issue, and whether a court orders or accepts a competency evaluation, remains to be seen as the murder case proceeds.