Justice and Admirer Have Split Decision on Murder Case

When I began writing this column in February, the first to send me a congratulatory letter was Justice Thomas F. Crosby of the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana. You don’t forget such kindness.

Crosby is a terrific writer. His court opinions are witty, acerbic on occasion, and to the point. You don’t have to decipher a Crosby opinion to know what he has to say.

Now comes a Crosby decision that I can’t seem to shake. I’m not a lawyer, but it nags at me that we looked at the same set of facts through such different eyes. By a 2-to-1 vote, the appellate court has reversed the first-degree murder conviction of Nanette Marie Scheid of Newport Beach. For the second time.

The details are gruesome:

In July of 1988, Kazumi and Ryoko Hanano of Anaheim, who were in their 60s, had advertised their Corvette for sale. Scheid, 27 then, came over for a test drive, promising to come back with her boyfriend to inspect the car. She returned a few hours later, with Robert “T-Bone” Taylor, and his friend James Norman Dewitt. They all gathered at the kitchen table, but Scheid left before any paperwork was signed.

Once she was gone, Taylor and Dewitt pulled guns and ordered the frightened couple into a back bedroom, where they handcuffed them on the floor and shoved their heads between the mattress and box springs. Taylor opened fire. Ryoko Hanano was killed. Kazumi Hanano miraculously survived two shots to the head, but he was left paralyzed from the neck down for life. The killers left in the Corvette.

It’s not a case I can easily forget, for a couple of reasons. I covered Scheid’s first trial, and never doubted that jurors would decide she was at least a willing participant in a robbery. And that’s enough under California law to make her guilty of murder.

Also, every morning after I drop my son off at high school, I have to drive by the Hanano home. Each time, I think about that senseless shooting.

Taylor was sent to death row, Dewitt got a sentence of life in prison without parole and Scheid received 25 years to life in prison. The jurors took just five hours to deliberate on verdicts for all three at a joint trial.

In 1993, Scheid’s murder conviction was set aside by the 4th District Court, on grounds she should have had a separate trial. But in 1994, a second jury convicted her of murder again.

A few weeks ago, Crosby wrote in his reversal opinion that the second trial judge erred by letting jurors see a gruesome picture of the couple tied together on the floor. Justice Edward J. Wallin concurred, Justice Sheila P. Sonenshine dissented. Prosecutors plan to appeal the reversal, and if that fails, they insist, they’ll take Scheid back to court for a third trial.

Crosby wrote: “ . . . The prosecutor merely used the photograph to prejudice the defense case. . . . It had exactly no probative value.” Maybe he’s right. Certainly no one believes Crosby or Wallin are insensitive to the Hananos’ fate. Their judgments are based on how they see the law, and I’ve always admired those in black robes willing to take positions they know will be unpopular.

But this is a tough one to see come back. Kazumi Hanano, now in a wheelchair, will have to relive those horrible events yet again if a third trial is held. To me, the chances for a different outcome for Scheid seem slim.

With two reversals on this case under his belt, you get the feeling Justice Crosby really thinks she’s innocent. Here’s some of what he wrote:

“The case against her was marginal at best. . . . The physical evidence against Scheid is frustratingly ambiguous. . . . That she was sent away from the crime scene by Taylor suggests she was not in on the plan. . . . “

Kazumi Hanano testified the killers produced the guns and handcuffs from a briefcase that Scheid had carried in. The briefcase could well have been the key to clinching Scheid’s guilt.

Scheid claimed she thought the briefcase contained paperwork for the car sale. But when Deputy Dist. Atty. Bryan Brown handed her the satchel--which unbeknownst to Scheid contained the two huge guns used in the shootings--she struggled to lift it. Several jurors said later it was a compelling moment: How could she not have known what was inside?

I have much sympathy for Scheid. Her life was a mess at the time. Forced out of her family home due to a drug problem, she had no home until she hooked up with Taylor through the drug crowd a short time before the shootings. Scheid had never committed a crime, and I can’t see her going along with a plan to kill the Hananos. Her greatest crime seems to be stupidity in her choice of friends.

But Scheid faces a tough battle at a third trial. Jurors will once again hear those words from Kazumi Hanano that helped seal Scheid’s fate: Without her initial, well-dressed appearance for the test drive, he would never have let his guard down and allowed the disheveled Taylor and Dewitt into his home. (Hanano said they looked like Hells Angels.) And Taylor’s argument on Scheid’s behalf that the guns were never in the briefcase just doesn’t seem plausible.

Immediately after her first trial conviction, I saw Scheid pass a note to Taylor, indicating that some connection between the two still remained. After eight years in jail and prison, I’m sure she wishes now she’d never met him.

Wrap-Up: Crosby wrote that the trial judge didn’t consider the crime scene photo prejudicial perhaps because of “a skin thickened by too many gruesome murder trials.”

And discussing T-Bone Taylor: “To attempt to analyze his actions in terms of normal common sense is to apply logical principles to the world of the Mad Hatter.”

That’s the Crosby I’ve appreciated reading for more than 15 years. I just wish I didn’t have to drive by that Hanano home every weekday.

Jerry Hicks’ column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Readers may reach Hicks by calling the Times Orange County Edition at (714) 966-7823 or by fax to (714) 966-7711, or e-mail to jerry.hicks@latimes.com