The Dippolito Contract Murder Case and Change of Venue

By: Dr. Peter A. Barone, Esq.

A serious mistake made by the Circuit Court Judge during the Jury Selection process in the attempted Murder for Hire case in the State of Florida in 2009 of Dalia Dipplolito

In its opinion, the appellate court deemed that the trial court erred by denying her request to individually
question prospective jurors about their exposure to pretrial publicity about her case and denying her request to strike the entire jury pool after all the jurors heard an allegation that Dippolito had attempted to poison her husband.

Dippolito was arrested in August 2009 after she hired an undercover police officer who was posing as a hit man to kill her husband, Michael Dippolito. Police then staged a crime scene and recorded her reaction on the day the murder was supposed to take place.

Jurors during the trial were shown an undercover video of Dalia Dippolito offering an undercover officer pretending to be a hit man $5,000 to kill her husband.

In the United States Jury System the selection of a jury is critical to the outcome of the case for both the defense and prosecution. In the book I am writing I provide the history of evidence and how thousands of years ago the jurors were selected on what they actually did know about the case. However, I also present that today we have come full circle and we do not want any of the jurors to have detailed information or an opinion about the case, the defendant and guilt or innocence. We want the jurors to be like a completely clean white board and the only things we want the jurors to know, understand and consider in their deliberation process is what has been admitted by the court.

The selection of potential jurors is a critical stage and the ability to ask them about their exposure to pretrial publicity is critical to trying to understand whether each potential juror will or will not be struck with either a preemptory strike or a strike for cause.

If it is determined that so many people have a great deal of pretrial publicity about the case at hand. If it is determined, and in this case was determined that just about every juror has a good deal of knowledge regarding the case and with this demonstrated a motion for Change of Venue will be made.

A change of venue in the criminal law system is something that occurs when the defense shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the defendant can’t receive a fair trial in the current court. Events that make it nearly impossible to find an impartial jury justify venue change. The most prevalent of these events is pretrial publicity as we have in the instant case regarding the defendant Dippolito. Some cases have received so much negative attention or just attention in general, in the community that by the time they are ready to go to trial the defendant needs a jury from an altogether different community. By transferring the case it assures that the jury pool is one that does not have the pre-trial knowledge and exposure to the facts of the case thus giving the defendant a fair chance at a fair and valid trial.  

To fully understand the Change of Venue process it is important to know that changes of venue can also occur when the current venue isn’t the right one such as where the crime occurred in one county, but is being prosecuted in a different county. The court in the county where the crime did not occur may well lack of jurisdiction unless the county or city is in the same jurisdictional area. If this occurs then the case must be transferred to the correct jurisdiction.

                                                                         Reference
Scheb, J.M. and Scheb II, J.M. (2011). Criminal Law and Procedure 7^th. Ed. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.