Funding the Defense and the Legal Gravity of the Slayer Statute
At the center of the controversy is California’s Slayer Statute, which prohibits a person who feloniously and intentionally kills another from inheriting or otherwise benefiting from the victim’s estate. The law exists to prevent exactly one outcome: a killer profiting from the death.
Public speculation has largely fixated on the possibility that Reiner may have access to a trust established by his grandfather, Carl Reiner, which—if created independently and prior to the killings—would generally fall outside the Slayer Statute’s reach.
That theory, while legally neat, may miss the more realistic and legally fraught scenario.
Based on widely reported accounts of Reiner’s long-standing mental health struggles, substance abuse, repeated stints in rehabilitation, and documented volatility—including statements from family members expressing fear of him—it would not be unusual for parents to establish a controlled trust during their lifetimes. Such trusts are often designed not to hand cash directly to the beneficiary, but to disburse funds for qualifying purposes like housing, treatment facilities, or supervised living arrangements.
If Rob and Michele Reiner created such a trust for their son during their lifetimes, the legal implications shift dramatically. Any post-death benefit flowing from that structure could fall squarely within the Slayer Statute’s prohibitions—particularly if funds were used, directly or indirectly, to finance a criminal defense arising from their deaths.
