Anjelica Cappellino, J.D.
Anjelica Cappellino, Esq., a New York Law School alumna and psychology graduate from St. John’s University, is an accomplished attorney at Meringolo & Associates, P.C. She specializes in federal criminal defense and civil litigation, with significant experience in high-profile cases across New York’s Southern and Eastern Districts. Her notable work includes involvement in complex cases such as United States v. Joseph Merlino, related to racketeering, and U.S. v. Jimmy Cournoyer, concerning drug trafficking and criminal enterprise.
Ms. Cappellino has effectively represented clients in sentencing preparations, often achieving reduced sentences. She has also actively participated in federal civil litigation, showcasing her diverse legal skill set. Her co-authored article in the Albany Law Review on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines underscores her deep understanding of federal sentencing and its legal nuances. Cappellino's expertise in both trial and litigation marks her as a proficient attorney in federal criminal and civil law.
The Rebuttal Expert Report: 4 Steps For Critiquing An Opposing Expert
If an expert is necessary to prove a case theory, chances are the opposing party will also retain their own expert. But no matter how sound one side’s legal theories and expert opinions appear to be, an opposing expert’s conclusions will likely present a number of challenges to those arguments. However, an unfavorable opposing opinion
Posted on October 9, 2018 in Working with Experts
4 Keys To A Successful Daubert Challenge
It's critical to understand what a successful Daubert challenge looks like in order to point out the opposing expert's weaknesses.
Posted on October 11, 2018 in FRE, Daubert, & Frye
Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Cases: The Importance of an Expert
Over the past fifteen years, summary judgment motions filed by defendants in medical malpractice cases have experienced an increased likelihood of success, with the crux of the motion dependent upon expert opinion. Generally, summary judgment motions must show that there are no material facts at issue and as a matter of law, the moving party
Posted on October 23, 2018 in Working with Experts
Lay Witnesses vs. Expert Witnesses: Key Differences and Takeaways
Any individual who testifies under oath is considered a witness. However, whether one is categorized as a lay witness or expert witness is a designation that affects all aspects of the litigation process, from pre-trial disclosures to in-court testimony. It is critical to be aware of the differences between expert witnesses and lay witnesses, to ensure an effective legal strategy an favorable outcome in your case.
Posted on November 1, 2018 in Working with Experts
Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence: A Guide to the Ultimate Issues of Fact
When admitting expert testimony in federal court, establishing that the witness’s testimony is both reliable and relevant is only half the battle. It is just as important to know the opinions to which an expert cannot attest. Governed by the Article VII of the Federal Rules of Evidence, expert admissibility, in many respects, is afforded
Posted on November 6, 2018 in Working with Experts
The Daubert Standard: A Guide To Motions, Hearings, and Rulings
The Daubert standard is the set of criteria used to determine the admissibility of expert witness testimony in federal court.
Posted on November 20, 2018 in FRE, Daubert, & Frye
Common Problems When Working with Experts (And How to Avoid Them)
Choosing the right expert witness can exponentially increase your chances of a successful outcome at trial. But like in any other professional relationship, things can go wrong. Whether these issues stem from disagreements over substantive testimony or are simply due to differences in personality, even the best experts and attorneys may experience conflicts during the
Posted on November 25, 2018 in Working with Experts
Florida Supreme Court Holds Frye is the Standard for Expert Admissibility
As any expert is well aware, the debate between Daubert versus Frye as the standard for expert witness admissibility is ongoing throughout the United States. While the federal courts follow the Daubert standard, a number of state courts have adopted the Frye standard – or in some cases, a hybrid of the two holdings. Now,
Posted on November 29, 2018 in News & Working with Experts
Fourth Circuit Affirms Immunity of Johns Hopkins Doctor as Expert Witness
Historically in the United States, witnesses are afforded immunity when testifying in judicial proceedings. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has further affirmed this doctrine in a recent decision establishing that expert witnesses squarely fall within the scope of these protections. In Day, et al. v. Johns Hopkins, Health System, et al., No. 17-2120 (4th
Posted on December 4, 2018 in News & Working with Experts
Demonstrative Evidence: How It Can Help Expert Testimony
By nature, most of us are visual people. Now more than ever, thanks to technological advancements, we as a society have become accustomed to constant visual stimulation. This basic premise also holds true in the courtroom.
Posted on December 18, 2018 in Resources for Experts & Working with Experts