Episode
Nick Reiner Asked A Judge For $1.5 Million — And Soap
- Published
- Jun 12, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 975
- Processing state
not_requested- Canonical source
- https://audioboom.com/posts/8915601
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/true-crime-today-daily-true-crime-news-interviews-568948/episodes/nick-reiner-asked-a-judge-for-1-5-million-and-soap/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/true-crime-today-daily-true-crime-news-interviews-568948/nick-reiner-asked-a-judge-for-1-5-million-and-soap.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
The latest Nick Reiner trial development arrived in the form of a probate petition — 136 pages requesting the release of more than $1.5 million in trust assets, and, in the same filing, modest distributions so the petitioner can purchase socks and personal hygiene items at the jail commissary, where spending is capped at $300. That juxtaposition is deliberate, and in this episode, defense attorney and former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis explains precisely what it accomplishes. The filing, submitted on behalf of Nick Reiner — who has pleaded not guilty to two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Rob and Michele Reiner — asserts that the trust his parents established at his birth mandated distribution of half its assets at age thirty and the remainder at thirty-five, describing those terms as "mandatory and unconditional." Faddis conducts a methodical review of the petition's legal architecture. He assesses the enforceability of mandatory-distribution language under California trust law, the significance of the undisputed timeline — Nick reached the age-thirty trigger more than two years before his parents' deaths and, per the filing, received nothing — and the petition's reliance on the presumption of innocence, including its assertion that the funds remain "lawfully his own" absent a conviction. He also evaluates the constitutional dimension: the claim that withholding the money deprives Nick of his counsel of choice, attorney Alan Jackson, whose declaration states his firm remains ready, willing, and able to resume the representation. Finally, Faddis addresses the procedural posture that should concern anyone watching this case: the reported possibility that an unopposed petition could be granted without a hearing — and identifies who would have to act, and…