DON’T CARE if they’re guilty!’ Top Hollywood lawyer Alan Jackson sparks FURY with chilling admission as he claims ‘nothing is indefensible’ while defending the world’s most hated figures

Nick Reiner’s former attorney, Alan Jackson, is sharing how he approaches his clients and their high-profile cases.

Jackson, 61, appeared on Kelly Ripa’s Let’s Talk Off Camera on Tuesday, Jan. 13, and spoke about how a lawyer would create a defense for a potentially guilty client.

Ripa, 55, asked Jackson about his decision to withdraw from Reiner’s case on Jan. 7, moments into Reiner’s arraignment. Reiner is charged with murder in the stabbing deaths of his parents, Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner. Nick will now be represented by a public defender.

Jackson explained to Ripa that there are “certain things” that he “simply can’t divulge,” regarding the change in counsel. However, his team will “always be committed to [Nick’s] best interests.” Jackson added, “I want him to get the most robust defense that he possibly can get. I know he will, in the hands of the public defender’s office.”

Ripa then asked Jackson how he argues cases that could be deemed “indefensible.”

“There’s very little in the law that’s indefensible,” Jackson said. “There’s a reason for that. I never approach a case like I’m just defending an individual.”

“We’re defending the Constitution,” the high-profile attorney explained. “We’re defending an idea. We’re defending the foundation on which this country was built in terms of its justice system.”

Related Stories

Rob Reiner’s Death: A Timeline of the Investigation and Nick Reiner’s Arrest

Nick Reiner’s Defense Attorney Suddenly Withdrew from the Case: Legal Expert Weighs in on Why

Jackson noted that the U.S. justice system grants people their “God-given right” of liberty that is “built into the fabric of our country.” But, he said, the justice system can remove someone’s liberty, calling it an “almost unthinkable” action.

“There are certain circumstances in which it’s absolutely appropriate,” he clarified. “I don’t have a problem with that, if it’s done perfectly.”

He continued by noting that with that approach, “I don’t worry about who the person is,” because “the word indefensible never comes up.”

“It’s completely defensible, no matter who the person is, if the government doesn’t get it right,” he said.

Jackson acknowledged that in certain circumstances, mental health is a factor (he clarifies that he’s speaking generally, and not about Nick’s case).

He then proposed the idea that people who are sick are not punished for being sick. “If someone has an epileptic seizure, and they go unconscious and God forbid they’re in a traffic accident and something happens, and people lose their lives, we don’t punish that as a crime.”

Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for PEOPLE’s free True Crime newsletter for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases.          

“We don’t punish in this country. We’re very civilized. We try to be civilized,” he said, before adding that the justice system will punish criminal conduct “where there’s an intent element.”

“The system is built to accommodate that, to address that,” Jackson explained, referencing the idea of the not guilty by reason of insanity defense. He said it’s for a defendant who has a mental illness, “cannot form an intent,” and doesn’t “understand the character and quality of [their] conduct.”

But as Jackson continued, Ripa bluntly asked him, “Have you ever taken a case where you’re like, ‘Hmm, I think this one’s probably guilty, but I’m gonna razzle-dazzle it?’ ”

“I don’t like to think of it as razzle-dazzle,” he said before, confirming, “the answer is no.”

“I normally don’t make pronouncements one way or the other, about the guilt or innocence of my client, because it doesn’t matter to me,” he said. “I don’t really care.”

“I care about the Constitution,” he reiterated. “I care about whether or not the government got their job right.”