High-Profile Lawyer Dumps Infamous Client: Did Slayer Statute Play Role?

It didn’t take long for accused murderer Nick Reiner to lose his high-profile Hollywood attorney.   Alan Jackson represented Nick Reiner for only about three weeks, withdrawing from the case on January 8, 2026.  Mr. Jackson’s withdraw has many speculating that an infrequently used law, often called the “Slayer Statute,” is the reason why.

 Michigan, like all states, has its own Slayer Statute:  MCL 700.2803.  It says that someone who “feloniously and intentionally” kills another person, either by criminal conviction, or by a “preponderance of evidence” as determined by the Probate Court, forfeits inheritance from the victim.  It also says that someone convicted of abuse, neglect, or exploitation forfeits their inheritance.

If Nick Reiner won’t inherit from his deceased parents, and doesn’t have his own money to pay Mr. Jackson with, the reason for his quick withdrawal from the case is apparent enough.

The principle goes back to long before the United States existed, and US courts have historically barred criminals from inheriting from victim’s estates, even in the absence of an applicable law.  The most famous example is Riggs v. Palmer, a New York case from 1889, where a grandson poisoned his grandfather in an attempt protect his inheritance.  Despite the lack of a Slayer Statute at the time, the Judge ruled that the grandson still would not inherit due to “universal law and maxims,” or what a Judge today might call an equitable result.

Clarkston Legal has recently engaged with a Slayer Statute case that raises some difficult questions.  The victim’s son was charged with manslaughter and vulnerable adult abuse in the death of his mother, but pled to lesser charges, which he then had expunged. 

In Michigan, an expungement is technically known as an application to set aside a conviction. One result of an expungement is that the expunged criminal records are no longer eligible for criminal review. This includes for interested fiduciaries such as a guardian ad litem or other attorneys interested in looking into the administration of a decedent's estate.

In our case, the son then later died, and so his estate would be in line to inherit from the mother’s estate.  Should the expungement matter?  Should the son’s estate and its heirs take from his mother’s estate, even if the Slayer Statute would bar him from taking if he was alive?

Probate inheritance scenarios of all kinds can raise unique questions like these, and the outcomes have serious financial implications.  If you have any questions relating to a probate matter, please contact our office for a free consultation.

Post #315