Substance abuse—particularly involving methamphetamine, cocaine, hallucinogens, or heavy cannabis use—can cause substance-induced psychosis, which often looks indistinguishable from schizophrenia.

Symptoms may include paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, agitation, disorganized behavior. Unlike schizophrenia, substance-induced psychosis can resolve with sobriety, though repeated use increases the risk of long-term psychiatric damage.

Cannabis, in particular, is known to worsen psychosis, not relieve it. THC increases paranoia and can precipitate psychotic episodes—especially in vulnerable individuals.

This raises a critical question:

Was a chronic psychotic disorder ever truly diagnosed—or are we now retrofitting a diagnosis onto years of substance abuse?

Mental illness, even when severe, does not automatically translate into legal insanity.

In California, the standard for Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is not a medical diagnosis, but a legal determination with a narrow focus: the defendant’s cognitive capacity at the precise moment of the alleged offense.

This distinction matters. A person may suffer from schizophrenia, substance-induced psychosis, or another serious psychiatric condition — and still fail to meet the legal threshold for insanity under California law. Conversely, the timing, consistency, and evidentiary support for a claimed diagnosis become critical when an NGRI defense is raised.

Against this legal backdrop, the sudden emergence of schizophrenia as a central narrative raises legitimate questions — not about whether mental illness exists, but about why it was never previously documented, disclosed, or discussed in this way until now.

Legal analysts have emphasized how narrow California’s insanity standard is, particularly in cases involving evidence of planning or prior conflict.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani has noted that while mental illness may be relevant, it does not override evidence suggesting cognitive awareness and intent.

“Insanity requires a psychosis such that the defendant doesn’t understand what he’s doing or that it’s wrong. If you’re capable enough to argue with someone and later return with a weapon, that’s evidence of premeditation — and it makes an insanity defense extremely difficult.”

That assessment underscores why the timing and consistency of the newly asserted schizophrenia diagnosis now matter — not as a moral question, but as a legal one.

For years, public discussion surrounding Nick Reiner centered on drug abuse and addiction. Those struggles were openly acknowledged. A film was even made exploring substance abuse and recovery.

Yet schizophrenia—a diagnosis that often explains erratic behavior more sympathetically than addiction—was never mentioned. That omission is difficult to reconcile.

If schizophrenia had been longstanding:

It would almost certainly have been diagnosed earlier.

It would have left a documented trail.

It would not suddenly appear only after a double homicide.

Individuals who interacted with Reiner in non-clinical settings have described volatility and behavioral dysregulation — accounts that suggest instability, but stop short of documenting chronic psychosis or delusional thinking.

In an interaction with Nick Reiner from years earlier, celebrity journalist Rob Shuter described volatility during a brief meeting with him, recalling that he “flew into a rage when they got his order wrong.”

Yoga instructor Alanna Zabel, who worked with Reiner as a child at his parents’ request, described persistent behavioral intensity, saying he was “inexhaustible” and that she “rarely got to a place of connection or mindfulness” during sessions.

Renowned attorney Mark Geragos has since stated that this is “not a new diagnosis.” If that is true, it raises several follow-up questions:

Why is the public only hearing about this now? Public perception would be more forgiving with a diagnosed mental disorder vs. drug abuse and behavioral issues as a result.

Why was there a movie made about drug abuse if schizophrenia were a factor?

Substance abuse is often framed as a treatable condition—something a person can recover from—whereas schizophrenia is a chronic mental illness that can be managed but not cured. That distinction significantly affects how the public interprets behavior and responsibility.

TMZ recently reported that while in custody, Reiner is “calm,” “dazed,” and unable to process what has happened. These descriptions are not medical diagnoses, nor are they sworn testimony. They are narrative fragments—offered without documentation, without court filings, and without forensic evaluation.

At the same time, prominent defense attorneys have begun publicly framing the case around mental illness. Geragos argued that drug use and schizophrenia are often intertwined, suggesting substance abuse may represent “self-medication.”

That argument may be common—but it is hotly contested in forensic psychiatry, and it does not resolve the central legal question:

capacity at the time of the offense

Some reports suggest Rob Reiner feared his son and believed he could be harmed by him. If true, California law provides mechanisms—such as involuntary psychiatric holds—for precisely that scenario.

Yet Reiner was:

• Brought to a crowded party
• Allowed to leave unsupervised
• Not hospitalized
• Not placed under intensive psychiatric monitoring

These facts are difficult to reconcile with claims of known, acute danger.

This case is still in its infancy. No medical records have been filed publicly. No forensic evaluations have been presented. Yet a definitive story is already being told.

When claims arrive suddenly, selectively, and conveniently, skepticism is not cruelty—it is responsibility.

Mental illness deserves compassion. Justice deserves evidence. And narratives should never outrun facts.

Related Articles