Cincinnati attorney Establishes Presence on Youtube with Educational legal videos

Cincinnati Attorney Establishes Presence on Youtube



Anthony Castelli has placed educational videos at youtube. the actual web address is http://www.youtube.com/user/castellilaw.



So far he has produced videos on:

1. the contingency fee


2. Do you need an attorney in every case

3. How to hire a good personal injury attorney


4. The Insurance company dirty trick


Anthony also has a presence on facebook and invites you to join his fan page at http://tinyurl.com/castellilaw


I feel I can stay in contact with more people and spread the use of educational materials so injury and accident victims can learn about their rights and important issues in the law by being involved in these "social networks" I especially focus on Ohio law since that is where I am licensed.


As always you are invited to contact me for a free initial consultation at 513- 621-2345 or email me thru my web site http://www.castellilaw.com/

Read More

Jurors Using Twitter or Facebook

Is There a Problem with Jurors using Twitter and Facebook ?

The issue has disrupted two recent cases in Arkansas and Pennsylvania. Defense attorneys in Philadelphia said Monday they plan to appeal the conviction of former State Sen. Vincent Fumo because a juror discussed the case on Facebook and Twitter.



In the Pennsylvania case, juror Eric Wuest (weest) put a posting on Facebook late Friday saying, "Stay tuned for a big announcement on Monday everyone!" His posting foreshadowed a verdict finding Fumo and a former aide guilty on all charges.Defense lawyers tried to have Wuest removed, but the judge wouldn't do so. He said he found the juror credible when he said no one outside the jury had influenced him . The defense attorneys said the tweets broke the rules against disclosure of jury deliberation.




In Arkansas a building materials company appealed a $12.6 million verdict, saying a juror's Twitter messages sent before and after the trial showed that he was biased against the company. The lawyers say tweets like "I just gave away twelve million dollars of somebody else's money" a "Oh nobody by Stoam its bad mojo" illustrate the juror was predisposed to a verdict that would impress his audience.

A recent search on Twitter for the term "jury duty" found dozens of people posting comments about jury duty, though most were general complaints, not discussions of what was happening in the jury room.



Lawyers are paying more and more attention to social-media updates, so it's likely we've not heard the last of the silly Twitter-based legal maneuver. But it's not just the information-spreading that's got lawyers and judges worried, it's also juries looking up info on their phones during trials.

In a drug trial in Florida, a judge declared a mistrial after learning that 8 jurors had accessed online information on their mobile phones during a trial. A cornerstone of the US' adversarial legal system is that juries can only consider the evidence that's presented to them, and jurors looking information up on their own breaks the longstanding rules of evidence of the system. It's not as if the legal system is under threat from technology, but certainly expect to see plenty more stories along these lines in the near future .

At every trial the judge tells the jurors not to do their own independant investigation. As the case is supposed to be based on the evidence presented in the Courtroom. My sense is that jurors will be offended but the ultimate resolution is no cell phones in the courtroom. of course that does not prevent a juror from tweeting at home or searching the internet.

However as a trial attorney I find that 99.9 % of the jurors try to do the right thing and follow the Judges instructions.

By Anthony Castelli Cincinnati personal injury trial attorney http://www.castellilaw.com

Read More

The Two Biggest Mistakes Personal Injury victims Make

Personal Injury Victims Make Two Big Mistakes

If you are injured as a result of another I have seen two mistakes often made .

#1 Accepting too little for your injury

#2 Wanting too much for your injury

1. People can accept too little for their injury when they represent themselves or have an attorney who will not go to trial. This is not always the case in every situation , but there are reasons for this. If you represent yourself you really do not know what your case is worth. You are at the mercy of what the insurance company tellls you. They will often tell you not to hire an attorney. Why, so you have to take what they offer you. The insurance research council did a study that showed that people represented by attorney on average end up with more.

Also if you hire an attorney who will not go to court then you are still in the same situation . You are stuck taking what the insurance company offers.

2. Some people want to much for their injury. They have no idea what their case is worth , but feel that since they have been harmed and inconvenienced insurance should pay and pay them a lot. Experienced personal injury attorneys can look at jury verdict research and their own cases and come up with an estimate or range of what the case may be worth. This is an art and not a science. However studies have shown that more people that go to trial end up with less than they would have settled for prior to trial. This again comes from jury verdict research and studies. Now some people are encouraged by their attorney , but many seek a large verdict over the advice of their attorney and end up with less than the settlement offer.

The moral of the story is you got to know when to holdem and know when to foldem. You have to try to set emotion aside and look at the value of your personal injury case as a business decision. If you have a significant case hire a good personal injury attorney who has been to trial and is willing to go to trial if you get a lowball offer. By the same token, if you hire an experienced and seasoned personal injury trail attorney listen to their advice if they tell you a fair settlement has been offered.

by Anthony Castelli Cincinnati personal injury trial lawyer

Read More

Attorneys Keep Federal Regulators from foreclosing Personal Imnjury suits under State law

The Washington Post (3/5, A2, Barnes) reports, "The 6 to 3 vote in the court's most anticipated business decision of the term was a rejection of Bush administration policy and a major setback to pharmaceutical companies, which face thousands of lawsuits in state courts from patients who allege that drugs have harmed them."
The AP (3/5) reports, "The Supreme Court" upheld "a $6.7 million jury award to a musician who lost her arm to gangrene following an injection." The plaintiff, "Diana Levine of Vermont once played the guitar and piano professionally" and "her right arm was amputated after she was injected with Phenergan, an anti-nausea medicine made by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, using a method that brings rapid relief, but with grievous risks if improperly administered." There were many other outlets that covered the Wyeth ruling.

To sum up, Levine, a guitarist, suffered from migraines and often received an injection at a nearby clinic of Phenergan in her backside to treat related nausea symptoms. But on one tragic visit in 2000, instead of giving her a shot in the butt, the physician's assistant attempted to inject the drug directly into a vein in her arm using an alternative approved method called intravenous push.The worker accidentally injected the drug into Levine's artery instead of a vein, which has the potential to cause a spasm in the artery, reducing the blood supply and sometimes leading to gangrene. Indeed, the right-handed musician rapidly developed an infection in her right hand and forearm, and doctors were forced to amputate the blackened limb in two stages.Although the packaging was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and described the risks of Phenergan, Levine's lawyers argued that the warning against IV-push should have been stronger. A Vermont jury awarded Levine $6.7 million in damages, and the Vermont Supreme Court upheld the decision in 2006. But Wyeth appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has now weighed in, putting the matter to rest.The three justices who ruled against Levine were John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito, Jr., who penned the dissenting opinion. "[I]t is odd (to say the least) that a jury in Vermont can now order for Phenergan what the FDA has chosen not to order for mustard gas," Alito wrote -- referring to the highly toxic but powerful chemical that, despite the significant risk, can be administered via IV push as an anticancer drug.

This was a bittersweet victory for Levine as she much rather would have had her arm and her happy life style back. But at least the money will go to help her make up for what has been lost.

Read More