In a case that has shocked the entertainment world, Nick Reiner, son of legendary filmmaker Rob Reiner, stands accused of first-degree murder of his father, and also of his mother, Michele Reiner.

With the inevitable backdrop of the glaring Hollywood spotlight, time will tell whether Reiner’s murder trial ends up devolving into a spectacle of celebrity privilege and familial drama.

Reiner, if convicted, faces life in prison without parole.

Battle lines within the courtroom have already been drawn. His defense team is being led by high-profile attorney Alan Jackson, who previously represented disgraced filmmaker Harvey Weinstein as well as Karen Read, who was accused of murder and subsequently acquitted.

The prosecution team is being led by Habib Balian. Balian is well known for his prosecutorial work on the cases of Robert Durst and the Menendez brothers.

Reiner’s defense team is signaling that the lawyers will likely go in the direction of an insanity plea, a strategy that many legal experts characterize as a steep climb.

This is exactly as it should be.

Far from being flawed, the rigorous standards in our courts for proving insanity are designed to be a safeguard against abuse, ensuring that even in high-profile, heart wrenching, inter-family cases such as this, justice will remain blind.

To be clear, the insanity defense is not, and should never be, a get-out-of-jail-free card for heinous acts.

In most U.S. jurisdictions (including California where Reiner’s case unfolds), defendants must not just prove mental illness was present, but they must also prove that they were incapable of understanding the nature of their actions or of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the crime.

This is known as the M’Naghten Rule, the legal standard for the insanity defense, which originates from a case in England back in 1843.

Interestingly, it is a standard that, when applied, succeeds in approximately 1% of the cases in which it is attempted.

With regard to Reiner, reports suggest that his history of mental health struggles, and possible substance abuse, will be central to the plea. However, in practice, voluntary drug use rarely qualifies as legal insanity. It often points instead to diminished capacity at best, which might mitigate sentencing, but does not absolve guilt.

The maintaining of the tradition that makes it difficult to assert an insanity defense is important for society at large. It prevents the legal strategy from being weaponized in cases in which the desire for rehabilitation might generate public sympathy, despite the gravity of the crime.

If every defendant with a psychologist’s report could claim temporary madness, prisons would be empty and the families of victims would be left without recourse or closure.

In Reiner’s situation, the alleged premeditation (evidenced by crime scene details that are emerging) makes an insanity verdict even less likely. This is not injustice, but rather it is the system working to hold individuals responsible, regardless of their circumstances or position within society.

Because Reiner’s father was a renowned Hollywood filmmaker, a media frenzy is to be expected, as is speculation about motives.

At this point in time, it is reassuring that the case seems to be being handled like any other first-degree murder prosecution, unswayed by the Reiner family’s fame or inter-family dynamics.

In a recent courtroom appearance, Reiner was denied bail and is being kept incarcerated until he proceeds to trial, much like any other defendant in a similar position would be. No red-carpet treatment, but simply hearing the judge’s gavel strike in the same manner it would for any other individual.

This manifestation of equality under the law is precisely the way it is supposed to be.

We have seen far too many instances in which wealth and status appear to compromise the quality of justice itself, via deferred prosecutions, dismissed cases, and lenient sentences for those who are powerful, affluent, or well-connected.

In the Reiner criminal proceeding up until the present, prosecutors appear to have been using the full weight of evidence, pushing forward with witness statements and a timeline that paints a picture of deliberate violence.

The inter-family aspect adds layers of sorrow, no doubt. Rob and Michele were not just victims, but a father and a mother, purportedly losing their lives in a gruesome manner, allegedly at the hands of their own son, a loss that would tear any household apart.

Despite these alleged factors, though, the court thus far understands that the case should not be treated as a private family matter to be hushed up or plea-bargained away behind closed doors.

The high-profile nature of the case serves to remind us all that murder is murder, regardless of where it takes place or the societal ranking of the individuals involved.

Numerous observers have pointed out that the celebrity aspects of the case may create biases that can cut both ways, with jurors potentially being starstruck or, in contrast, overly punitive.

In its exquisiteness, the law has the protective mechanisms of jury selection, sequestering, and an appellate system that work together to keep fairness in the forefront.

May the principles that guide our legal system remain intact, and may justice for all prevail.