Julie Ann Ianniciello was convicted of First Degree Murder after a jury found she shot and killed her husband. There was marital conflict (Ms. Ianniciello was in an affair, with texts indicating she wanted out of the marriage). On appeal, she argued she did not receive a fair trial because the State elicited testimony regarding her “pretrial silence” (she did not “check in” with law enforcement prior to being charged).
The murder occurred on April 2, 2016. Ms. Ianniciello’s husband had gone to bed after taking some Benadryl. Ms. Ianniciello planned to leave the house to pick up her stepdaughter. Her two daughters waited for her in the car, but Ms. Ianniciello took about ten minutes to get in. She was supposedly looking for her stepdaughter’s cat. Upon returning from picking up the stepdaughter, the husband’s bloodied body was discovered, and 911 called.
Law enforcement spoke with Ms. Ianniciello several times and searched her car, finding nothing. Law enforcement also spoke with Ms. Ianniciello’s paramour several times. Ms. Ianniciello was not charged for three years. Her first trial, in 2022, ended in a hung jury and mistrial. In 2024, a jury returned a guilty verdict
At trial, multiple law enforcement witnesses testified that Ms. Ianniciello did not “reach out”, “call”, “check in”, or “provide information” to law enforcement prior to being charged. She was asked to take a polygraph. Initially, Ms. Ianniciello agreed. On April 2, 2016, the lead detective observed Ms. Ianniciello was not particularly upset despite her husband’s recent murder. On April 18, Ms. Ianniciello’s attorney informed the same detective she would not take a polygraph and asked the detective to have no further contact with his client. Division I recognized this clear admonition as sufficient to invoke the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Yet, without defense objection at trial, the State elicited testimony from two detectives about Ms. Ianniciello’s failure to contact them, with questions like “You previously testified Ms. Ianniciello never reached out to you as the lead investigator”. Ms. Ianniciello argued for the first time on appeal that this line of questioning was a constitutional violation. The court determined such questioning “was an attempt to convince the jury that Ms. Ianniciello’s silence by not communicating with law enforcement demonstrated her guilt. This is precisely what the Fifth Amendment prohibits.” Ianniciello, pg. 7.
Thus, Division 1 held the State violated Ms. Ianniciello’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and that the constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, since the State’s case depended “largely on circumstantial evidence”. Id. 8. The State’s theory was Ms. Ianniciello killed her husband to be with her lover, she had a brief window of opportunity to do so while looking for the cat in the residence while her daughters waited in the car and that her ‘odd’ demeanor, which was described as “calm” and “very cold”, was indicative of guilt.
Her silence supported the State’s theory of “incriminatory demeanor”. Id. 10. Because the State could not prove the constitutional error was harmless, “the remedy was a new trial”. State v Chuprinov 32 Wn. App. 2d 508, 521 (2024).
It will be interesting to see if the State will attempt to try Ms. Ianniciello a third time. This writer believes it is highly likely, since cell phone records ruled out Ms. Ianniciello’s lover as a possible suspect. Some of the forensic evidence (shell casings, unspent shells) did not have Ms. Ianniciello’s DNA or fingerprints. It will be a difficult circumstantial case.