The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I, has reversed the conviction of Julie Ann Ianniciello for first-degree murder and remanded the case for a new trial. The court found that prosecutors violated her Fifth Amendment and Washington Constitution right to remain silent by repeatedly emphasizing to jurors that she had not “called,” “checked in,” or “provided information” to law enforcement after her husband’s death, even though she had invoked her privilege against self-incrimination. The court held that this constitutional violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case stems from the 2016 death of Ianniciello’s husband, Tom, who was found shot in the head as he lay sleeping. The couple had a troubled marriage characterized by alcohol abuse and infidelity. In March 2016, Ianniciello engaged in an affair with a coworker, and the relationship became known to her husband shortly before Tom’s death. The State later charged Ianniciello with murder nearly three years after the incident; her first trial—a mistrial—occurred in 2022, followed by a second trial in 2024 that ended in a guilty verdict.

On appeal, Ianniciello argued that prosecutors violated her rights by introducing testimony from detectives stating she never “reached out” or “checked in” after the crime—comments emphasizing her silence as evidence of guilt. The Court of Appeals agreed, citing longstanding precedent that the State may not use a defendant’s pre-arrest silence as an inference of guilt once the privilege against self-incrimination has been invoked. Because Ianniciello had expressly told investigators she would not take a polygraph and asked not to be contacted, prosecutors were prohibited from drawing attention to her post-event silence. The court ruled that the multiple references to her silence had practical, prejudicial impact on the jury, and the State failed to prove that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court ordered a new trial.

Although Ianniciello also challenged the admission of approximately 800 pages of sexually explicit emails detailing her extramarital affair—arguing they were unduly prejudicial—the court declined to address that issue, focusing the reversal solely on the Fifth Amendment violation.

Why this matters
The ruling underscores Washington courts’ strict enforcement of the right to remain silent—and sets a cautionary precedent for prosecutors who may be tempted to portray a defendant’s non-engagement with investigators as suspicious. The case also raises broader questions about trial fairness in intimate partner homicide cases, particularly where inequitable evidentiary choices may compound inference-based narratives.