Mississippi Lawyer Blog

My legal assistant, Jen, sent me this heartbreaking article and suggested I blog about the dangers of texting and driving. I have blogged about texting before but when I see an article like this one and I think about how many young teenagers I personally know who recently stared to drive I think it's worth another blog.

The article is about 16 year old Savannah Nash and her tragic death. Savannah just got her driver's license and her family gave her permission to take the car out for the first time by herself. She simply went to the grocery store to pick up a few items. As she was driving, she failed to yield at an intersection and a semi tractor truck t-boned her car. The trooper who investigated the accident reported that Savannah was texting at the time of the accident.

By all accounts, Savannah was a sweet little girl who was loved by her family and friends. Over 300 people turned out for her funeral. I can't imagine her family's grief and don't care to. Our thoughts and prayers go out to them.

I have several friends who have young drivers and I know that they text and drive even though their parents have told them not to. I know this because they're kids and that's what kids do. I know you can talk and talk to kids and they won't listen to you. You tell them to pick up their clothes, do their homework, brush their teeth, etc. until your blue in the face. Kids simply have of tuning out their parents voices.

I would love to share Savannah's story with each and every teen in America. I want them to see how this 16 year old girl was needlessly killed. How her death has devastated her family and friends. How her death left a hole in their lives that will never be filled. There will be an empty seat at the dinner table forever. When her favorite TV show comes on, it will only bring tears to her parents' eyes. When they hear songs she enjoyed, they will feel sadness. The holidays will never be the same. Her birthday will be mourned instead of celebrated. When her friends graduate high school and then college, her family will only feel loss.

If you are a parent, please take time to let your child read this story. As a parent of of a 9 year old, I will be telling my son about Savannah. Won't you take time to do the same with your child? I hope to practice law another 30 years and I truly hope that I never have to represent another family who has lost a child. Maybe Savannah's story can help prevent another tragic death.

Continue reading "Texting Blamed for Horrible Car Accident. Mississippi Parents Please Eductate Teens!" »

As the Kenny Chesney song goes, Summertime is finally here! And with that comes summer camps for the kids. Nowadays nearly every childrens' activity will involve a parent signing a release which purports to hold the camp harmless in the event the child is hurt while at camp in a freak hunting accident like the one warned about in Meatballs: "Important announcement - Some hunters have been seen in the woods near Piney Ridge trail and the fish and game commission has raised the legal kill limit on campers to three. So, if you're hiking today, please wear something bright and keep low." (As an aside, isn't it a little strange how parents are quick to sign these releases without so much as questioning the camp director about it? Heck, what if the reason for the release is that years ago a camp attendee drowned in the lake and his psycho mom is back looking for revenge? Come on parents, wake up and ask some questions!)

Most parents think if their child gets hurt after signing a release then they cannot do anything about it. We field calls all the time about the validity of such releases. Can a camp, or other recreational activity, limit their liability by having a parent sign a release? The short answer is "no", the release is not valid.

Our Mississippi Supreme Court has long held that releases which seek to limit the liability of a party are looked up on with disfavor but releases can be valid. The Court construes these releases with a "jaundiced eye" (I really don't know what that means but I've read it a lot in cases and always wanted to use it in a sentence) and will only be enforced if the release is "fairly and honestly negotiated and understood by both parties".

So what does all that mean? Well, the releases that parents sign when they enroll their kid in sports,camps, or even daycares are all pre-printed forms. The parent does not negotiate the terms of the release and most of the time is not even aware that they are signing a release. The Supreme Court has taken the view that such "pre-printed releases" are not valid and will not be upheld. This also goes for waivers signed by adults. Typically, every health club nowadays has a pre-printed release which every member must sign. However, as with releases signed by kids, the releases will not be upheld because the terms are not negotiated.

So why do business use these pre-printed release forms even if they are not valid? Simply because most people will think they are valid and won't even bother to challenge them if they get hurt. It's really a win win for the businesses but the consumer, as usual, is the one who loses. Imagine all of the medical bills that parents have had to pay simply because a business told them "you signed the release so we are not responsible".

Continue reading "What happens if I sign a release for my child to attend summer camp?" »

Tylenol is a staple in my home as I'm sure it is in the homes of many Mississippians. We use it for aching muscles, fever reducer, and to relieve headaches commonly associated with practicing law and coaching 9 year old baseball. Sometimes I just feel like Clark Griswold in Christmas Vacation and find myself screaming for the Tylenol!

The wonderful ingredient which makes this happen is acetaminophen. In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning limiting the amount of acetaminophen per tablet and requiring manufacturers to warn of the dangers of severe liver injury for prescription products. Tylenol, Extra strength Tylenol, Tylenol PM, Children's Tylenol, all the cold & flu remedies, allergy remedies, contain acetaminophen. People may have been taking those and other prescription drugs that contain acetaminophen. Some people have had very serious reactions to the acetaminophen.

The most common side effect is liver damage and liver failure. Studies have shown that using acetaminophen in connection with other medicines put you at more of a risk for problems. The FDA advises everyone to read the label before taking Tylenol (or any other drug). Make sure you are not already taking a drug which is contraindicated (big word, means you shouldn't take it with Tylenol).

Globally, we will spend $70 billion annually on over the counter drugs. That is a staggering sum but it is dwarfed by the pharmaceutical industry's $1 trillion market worth by 2015. I point these astronomical figures out only because with this kind of money comes great political power. The pharmaceutical companies have a lot to risk and I expect that they will make sure their drugs hit the market and get sold. Doctors are nothing more than salespersons for the drug companies. When was the last time your doctors sat down with you and explained the risks associated with your prescription medicine?

The FDA has put it on us, the people, to read and educate ourselves on the drugs we put into our bodies. In a way, we should take that responsibility but the drug companies have a duty to alert consumers when there are potential problems with their drugs.Doctors also have a heightened duty to explain the side effects to their patients. However, drug companies routinely put profits ahead of people and most doctors are too busy to sit and talk with patients.

Continue reading "Attention Mississippi: Beware of Tylenol" »

"What's the difference between an ordinance and a statute?" I have fielded this question quite a few times in the past week. These two terms are commonly misused because we simply repeat what we have already heard through the media, whether it be the news or the paper.

Ordinances are enforceable at the city level only and only by the particular city that enacted the specific ordinance (unless it's a county ordinance, and then it covers the entire county). In other words, an ordinance in the city of Jackson cannot be enforced in the city of Vicksburg. Ordinances may only address misdemeanor violations and shall never address felonies. Any violations of a city ordinance are handled by that city's municipal court. While each city has a different procedure for approving an ordinance, usually these ordinances have been drafted by someone in the city or the city attorney's office and have then been adopted by the board of aldermen or city council and then approved by the city's mayor. Violating a city ordinance can result in a fine and/or jail time. Keep in mind that any time an individual goes to court and is found guilty of violating a city ordinance, that individual is responsible for paying court costs and assessments, which is usually anywhere between $100 and $200 depending on the violation. A listing of Jackson ordinances can be found here.

Statutes are enforceable throughout the entire state, including at the municipal court level. These are enacted by the state legislature and are regarded a bit higher than ordinances. Statutes have been kicked around committee hearings in the legislature and have withstood review by both the House and Senate, and then were signed into law by the sitting governor. These laws can still be considered unconstitutional by the Mississippi Supreme Court for a variety of reasons. A violation of a misdemeanor statute can result of a fine and/or jail time up to a year in the county jail. When in court for a violation of a statute, whether it be misdemeanor or felony, there will always be court costs and assessments attached to any sort of fine the defendant may be required to pay. The entire Miss. Code can be found here. As my boss says many, many times, "a code lawyer is a dangerous lawyer."

If you have any questions about your understanding of the law where you live, feel free to call the attorneys at Coxwell & Associates so that we may help you.

Unless you have been on a 5 year vacation, you could probably pick Jodi Arias out of a lineup. You have heard Nancy Grace talk about Jodi Arias so much that you probably change the channel, which means I should definitely take the time to write about her here, right?

The point of this blog is not to comment on Jodi Arias or Travis Alexander or the death penalty or how capital punishment is used in Arizona, but to highlight a portion of the trial that most jurors cannot wait for attorneys to get to: closing arguments.

Today I had a person call the office to ask a "legal question": "Can the prosecutor call someone a liar in closing arguments?" Now, we all know this really could have been answered by Google, but I briefly and politely answered her question.

While the author of this blog is never comfortable with name-calling at any portion of any trial, the short answer is "yes." When a witness takes the stand in any trial, the credibility of that witness is always at issue. In this case, Jodi Arias waived her right against self-incrimination and took the witness stand in her own defense. By testifying on her own behalf, Jodi Arias opened herself up (pun intended) to be cross-examined by the prosecutor. Since she had given various accounts of what actually happened, the prosecutors attempted to impeach her with her own statements. Jodi Arias told police and investigators (and even the jury) at least three (3) different versions of what happened. By definition, one or more of those versions were not truthful.

There are subject areas and comments that attorneys are not allowed to mention during closing argument. The Mississippi Supreme Court has widely rejected impermissible arguments during closing: "Although it is the duty of the district attorney to prosecute a case with diligence, he or she should guard against doing or saying anything which would prejudice the minds of the jurors or tend to cause them to decide a case on something other than the evidence." McCaskill v. State, 227 So. 2d 847 (Miss. 1969).

In other words, attorneys are not allowed to make arguments that are merely to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jurors. Take a look at these few examples:

"A prosecutor's comment regarding the prospect of allowing a 13-year-old defendant charged with murder to go free in a jurors' neighborhood was impermissible. The prosecutor was not arguing a statement of fact that was in evidence or that was relevant to an issue before jury, but was improperly attempting to frighten the jury." Dancer v. State, 721 So. 2d 583 (Miss. 1998).

"A prosecutor's repeated, improper comments encouraging the jury to "send a message" to the community and to "do something about the crime in this county" were not harmless error in a prosecution for aggravated assault and shooting into a dwelling house. The prosecutor violated the rules five times and, in the process, attempted to mislead the trial judge as to the prevailing law on the propriety of such argument, and the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming." Brown v. State, 986 So. 2d 270 (Miss. 2008).

In closing (another intended pun), attorneys should stick to the evidence (or lack thereof) and argument that can be made based on that evidence. Personal opinions of attorneys are not allowed. Attorneys can lead the horse to the water, but they simply should not force the horse's head into the water to force the horse to drink.

I was a huge Monkees fan when I was a kid.(What? I was 8!) I loved the song Daydream Believer. But who would've ever thought that daydreaming was so dangerous?

According to a recent study, daydreaming drivers are even more dangerous than texting drivers. In fact, daydreamers are five (5) times more dangerous. According to the study, 65,000 car accidents were researched over the last two years. An amazing 62% of car accidents which resulted in death were caused by drivers who were daydreaming. By comparison, only 12% of driving deaths were caused by texting drivers. (Can't you just see Governor Phil Bryant calling a special session to ban daydreaming while driving?)

Over the last 18 plus years, I have represented numerous car accident victims. Long before texting, we had drivers who would run stop signs, red lights, drive off the road, etc. and cause accidents. These drivers were distracted by something and not paying attention. According to the study, here are other forms of distractions and the percentage of accidents each caused:

Rubbernecking, 7 percent;
Kids or other vehicle occupants, 5 percent;
Reaching for an object elsewhere in the car, 2 percent;
Eating or drinking, 2 percent.

Other, more minor factors included operating vehicle controls, such as the heater or radio, and even reaching for an ashtray. Pets were also a problem blamed for 1 percent of all fatal distracted driving incidents.

Ok there are several activities that didn't make the list which apparently means they are safe, right? First, I noticed that neither air guitar or air drumming caused any accidents. These are two of my favorite driving activities. I am extremely partial to late 70's and early 80's rock songs, specifically AC/DC and Van Halen. I'm gonna be rockin' out on the way home today!

Secondly, singing seems to be fine as there were no reported incidents of singing drivers causing any accidents. I tend to cover Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'" . My wife Wendy swears she can nail just about any Lady Gaga tune in her car but I can tell you from personal experience she can't find the right pitch when she's out of the car or when someone is in the car with her. Strange how that works isn't it?

Lastly, even though I don't partake, smoking in your car seems to be safe as there were no reports of smokers causing accidents. However, I specifically do remember a very gnarly accident several years ago in California caused by smoking. It seems this fella, we'll call him Dude, was tokin' away singing some Creedence (heck, he appeared to be air drumming as well!) when he dropped his smoke in his lap and crashed. Fortunately no one was injured. It should be noted that Dude was also drinking while driving, the dangers of which we have blogged about numerous times, most recently here, here, and here. . By the way, I like your style Dude, but do you have to use so many cuss words? I digress.

Continue reading "What Causes Mississippi Car Accidents? Daydream Believers" »

I'm not a big movie guy but I've always liked Reese Witherspoon's work. She's versatile enough to play a spoiled rich kid, a country music singer, and a 50 foot animated woman. I chalk it up to her New Orleans upbringing, a city which has a little bit of everything.

Recently Witherspoon got to play the role of arrested celebrity. She and her husband, Jim Toth, were pulled over by Atlanta police. Toth was driving and the police said he was weaving in and out of lanes. According to police reports, Toth had a strong smell of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath and his eyes were watery and blood shot. As the police were investigating Toth, Witherspoon decided it was time to play her "celebrity card".

Reese asked one of the officers "Do you know my name?" Apparently the officer was not a fan of her work because he informed Reese that "no" he didn't need to know her name. Reese stepped out of the car with a handful of her DVD's to show the officer (author's embellishment). The officer was apparently not in the mood to watch a movie and ordered her back in the car. Undaunted, Reese exited the car once again, this time playing a guitar and singing a June Carter Cash song. (author's embellishment). The officer then arrested Reese at which time Reese informed the officer "You're about to find out who I am ... You are going to be on national news." Well, she was right about that.

Witherspoon was charged with disorderly conduct. Her husband was arrested for DUI and blew a .139 even though he claimed he only had one drink. Reese has released the obligatory statement apologizing for her actions and expressing how much respect she has for police officers. I'm sure her career will survive this hiccup, after all she survived Legally Blonde II: Red, White, and Blonde. But what about the criminal charges?

In Mississippi, a person's speech cannot be the basis for a disorderly conduct or breach of peace conviction unless the words used constitute "fighting words". Fighting words are those words which which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. See Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572 (U.S. 1942).

Police officers, however, are held to a higher standard with regards to what constitutes "fighting words". In several United States Supreme Court cases, convictions have been thrown out where a person cussed at police officers using "F bombs", "SOB", and certain other words you cannot say on television. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment "protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." Houston v. Hill, City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987). The Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have followed the United States Supreme Court rationale in cases where spoken words form the basis of a criminal charge.

In Witherspoon's case, her spoken words "don't you know who I am?" do not rise to the level of fighting words. However, the prosecutor may focus the charge on her conduct of refusing to stay in the car. Conduct is not protected by the First Amendment since speech is not being regulated. However, the conduct must be something that actually constitutes "disorderly conduct". Actions coupled with words can constitute a valid conviction for disorderly conduct and/or disturbing the peace.

Continue reading "Did Reese Breach the Peace? " »

As a lifelong Cleveland Browns fan I have faced some very trying times. Browns fans have suffered through Red Right 88, The Drive, and The Fumble just to name a few of the worst Browns' memories. However, this week the Browns have found a new way to disappoint their long suffering fans and demonstrate why their stadium is known as the Factory of Sadness.

New Browns owner Jimmy Haslam, Jr. was supposed to bring the Browns back to their glory days. He brought a jolt of energy to the franchise when he purchased the team in 2012. He was the exact opposite of former owner Randy Lerner. Haslam was personable, accessible, and a leader.

Haslam's family made their billions from the gas station business. Haslam's dad, James Haslam, first formed Pilot Corporation in 1958. They started out with one gas station which had four pumps. After years of hard work Pilot grew into a nationwide company. Jimmy Haslam, Jr. began working at the company in the early 70's and then became CEO in 1994. The company continued to grow and later merged with Flying J. The company is now known as Pilot Flying J and has over 550 locations in 23 states and Canada, and employs over 23,000 people. Oh, and Jimmy's brother Bill Haslam is the Governor of Tennessee.

So Jimmy Haslam, Jr. decided he wanted to get into the NFL business. He first started out by buying a minority share in the Pittsburgh Steelers (blech, cough cough. Sorry, I just threw up in my mouth.). Apparently Haslam liked the idea of owning an NFL team so he put out feelers on purchasing his own team. Enter the Cleveland Browns.

The Browns have a long and storied football tradition. Boasting one of the best fan bases and strong community support, the Browns were an ideal choice for Haslam. Then Browns owner Randy Lerner was more than eager to sell. Lerner had purchased a European soccer team years earlier and his focus seemed to be on English futbol instead of the American style. Haslam agreed to purchase the team for $1 billion and Browns fans were ecstatic. But diehard Browns fans were waiting for the other shoe to drop. The penalty which negated the touchdown. The fumble after a long gain. In other words, the inevitable bad news which follows the Browns around like Pig Pen's cloud of dust. It hit last week.

On the day of the tragic Boston Marathon bombing, news out of Knoxville, Tennessee (Pilot's headquarters) reported that the building had been locked down by the F.B.I. It quickly became apparent that the lock down was not due to any security threats however. Pilot was being investigated by the F.B.I. for failing to rebate money to its customers.

The affidavits which led to the search warrants were made public. Not only did Pilot appear to pocket rebates meant to go the the customers, the allegations stated that Haslam was aware of the scheme and approved it. Criminal charges could be coming and the federal government seems to have enough evidence to indict Haslam personally. If that happens, Haslam could be stripped of his Browns ownership just like Eddie DeBartolo, the former 49ers owner who was caught up in the scandal involving former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards.

And of course all of this occurs 10 days before the NFL Draft which to Browns fans is the best time of the year.

Continue reading "Browns Owner Faces Criminal Investigation" »

Getting charged with driving under the influence (DUI) is getting to be an everyday event for celebrities. Over the past year there have been several arrested. Just this week Reese Witherspoon and her husband were arrested in Georgia. He was arrested for DUI, Mrs. Witherspoon for disorderly conduct. In and around the Hinds, Madison, and Rankin county area, in the municipalities of Clinton, Jackson, Brandon, Flowood, Reservoir area, City of Madison, Ridgeland, and the other small cities, there are thousands of DUI arrests every year. Many of these DUI arrests occur exactly like the arrest of Reese Witherspoon and her husband. The attorneys at Coxwell & Associates have years helping people evaluate whether their arrest was legally proper and whether the clients have a good chance of successfully defending against a bad DUI arrest.

I can tell you as an attorney with thirty two (32) years of experience that the arrests of Mrs. Witherspoon and her husband are exactly like the arrests of hundreds of other people. They went out for dinner and had a drink or two. They decided to leave and go home and neither was "drunk" so they did not call a cab or arrange a ride in advance. They did not realize that under present DUI law driving drunk is not even mentioned. Let me repeat what I just said. Driving drunk is not in the law! Does that mean you can drive drunk and not be violating the law? Of course not!

Continue reading "Celebrity DUI is the Same as Ordinary DUI" »

As I sit hear preparing to defend a DUI case in the City of Jackson Municipal Court, I am reading a news story about 3 Doors Down bassist Todd Harrell's alleged involvement in a DUI related homicide. According to news reports, Harrell was speeding through a Nashville neighborhood when he clipped a pickup truck driven by Paul Howard Shoulders, Jr. Shoulders lost control of his car and wrecked. Mr. Shoulders subsequently died. (Reports indicated that Mr. Shoulders was not wearing a safety belt).

Harrell was questioned by police and admitted to drinking hard cider and taking Lortab and Zanax. Harrell's troubles continued when he got to jail for booking. Officers found numerous pills (Xanax,. 24 oxycodone pills and four oxymorphone) in a plastic bag which were hidden in his sock. Harrell was charged for illegally bringing these drugs into a jail. (This charge seems silly since the law seeks to prohibit a person from bringing drugs in a jail to distribute them to inmates; clearly Harrell was not doing this). Harrell remained in jail on $100,000 bond and has a court date this Thursday.

This is another tragic accident caused by drinking and driving. I don't want to be piling on Harrell here by Monday Morning Quarterbacking but this is a perfectly avoidable crime. If you want to go out and have some "hard cider with your Lortab and Xanax" you should have a designated driver or plan to call a cab. I've seen 3 Doors Down record sales and I'm pretty sure Harrell could have arranged for a driver. That's it. End of story.

But we have talked and blogged about these cases for years now. People will continue to drink and drive. They will continue to talk to the police and admit drinking and taking drugs. They will take field sobriety tests and breath tests. It makes sense when you think about it. Their judgement is already impaired so they aren't thinking straight. Why else would you admit to taking drugs and drinking after causing a fatal wreck?

I have defended drivers accused of DUI's but I have also represented those who have been seriously injured or killed by drivers who are DUI. These cases are never easy. On the defense side you have to convince a judge or a jury that simply having a drink or two doesn't impair your driving to the point where you cannot legally operate a motor vehicle. This is difficult because many people believe that one drink is too many.

On the other side, so often we represent a person who has been injured by a drunk driver and the driver does not have sufficient insurance coverage to even pay their medical bills much less future damages. We have clients with permanent injuries caused by drunk drivers who were stuck with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. The drivers were eventually prosecuted and are serving jail time so they have no jobs or money. There's no way to get "blood from a turnip" as my Dad used to say.

Continue reading "Mississippi's 3 Doors Down Band Member Charged in Fatal DUI" »

Jackson, Mississippi celebrity chef Cat Cora received a DUI in California last year. Ms. Cora bumped into another car and the police were called. Ms. Cora claimed that she only had three (3) beers BUT she took a breath test which revealed her blood alcohol content was .19 (the legal limit in California is .08 just like Mississippi).

California has much harsher DUI penalties than Mississippi. Ms. Cora struck a plea deal in which she paid fines of over $2,000 and received 120 jail sentence which was suspended, meaning she doesn't have to serve the time as long as she doesn't get into any more trouble.

To make matters worse for Ms. Cora, the driver of the other car videoed her after the wreck. She did not exactly come off as she does when she is doing a cooking show as you can see here.

What can Mississippians learn from this? Well, one of the best options is the little known "bee defense". If you are driving and get blue lighted, start swerving your car from one side of the road to the next. Look for a place to pull over close to a clearing. Once you are stopped you and any passengers should immediately bolt from the car shouting "bees!" and begin running wildly into the nearby open area. It helps if you could roll around every once in a while and pretend to swat at the invisible bees. Some folks have actually perfected the art of "buzzing" while doing all of this but if it's your first time you should probably just stick to running and swatting. I have included an example of how the "bee defense" should be done. (Obviously I just made that up. You should never try the "bee defense" and the fact that I actually have to issue such a disclaimer is an indictment on the American educational system.)

Now what can Mississippians really learn from this? Well, obviously you should never drink and drive. However, if you do find yourself behind the wheel after having a beer or two the worst thing you can do is admit anything to a police officer. That doesn't mean you should lie because the officer probably will smell the hops and barley coming from your breath despite the fact you just shoved an entire pack of Big Red gum in your mouth, paper and all, as he was walking up to your car. Just advise the officer that your are remaining silent but remain polite.Produce your license and insurance card. Step out of the car if he asks you. But don't perform any field sobriety tests or take any preliminary breath tests I also advise all my clients that we have a better chance of winning a DUI if you refuse the breath test once you are taken downtown to blow. If you take the breath test and register .08 or greater your chances of winning are greatly reduced.

Continue reading "Cat Cora DUI: Lessons for Mississippians" »

For over thirty years attorneys at Coxwell & Associates, PLLC have been providing advice to clients when it comes to DUI cases in the Jackson metropolitan area and all over the state of Mississippi. When you hire an attorney at this firm, you receive help with everything involved with your case AFTER you are arrested. Many times current clients ask us, "What should I have done when the officer pulled me over that night?" This article is written to address a few of those concerns. If you or someone you know is stopped and investigated for a possible DUI charge, keep the following advice in mind for DUI "Do's & Don'ts"


5 Mississippi DUI Do's

1. Do...use a designated driver - someone who is not going to consume any alcohol whatsoever while you are out. Our office represents far too many people who were asked to be the "DD" simply because they had "less to drink than everyone else." This is never a good idea.


2. Do...remain calm with the officer, and cooperate when given an order by the officer.
As soon as you are pulled over, remember to remain calm with the officer. If you are "freaking out", I guarantee you the officer will testify at trial that you were being belligerent. Go ahead and have your license and proof of insurance ready to give to the officer. You are not required to answer any questions, but you are required to command any order given by the officer. If the officer orders you to get out of the car, do exactly that. On the side of the road is not the place to argue with the officer.


3. Do...realize that everything you say or do will later be written in a report by the officer, and there is a high likelihood that you are being videotaped and audiotaped. Do not do something or say something that will most certainly help in convicting yourself. This includes using inappropriate language with the officer. We have never met a client who has used colorful language with an officer and the situation end well for the client.


4. Do...understand the difference between the portable breath test (PBT) and the Intoxilyzer 8000.
The PBT is only used for the purpose of determining of whether you have any alcohol on your breath. A positive reading on that test will more than likely result in the officer asking you to submit to field sobriety tests (more on these later). The results of the PBT are horribly inaccurate - so much so that courts do not allow the results in a trial.
The Intoxilyzer 8000 is the official breath test machine for the state of Mississippi. Courts rely heavily on the results of this test to determine a suspect's breath alcohol content. Refusing this test when offered by an officer can result in a 90 day suspension of license.


5. Do...write down every detail about the incident after you are released from custody. Writing down everything you can remember from the time of the encounter with law enforcement will help in preparing your defense. Where you were before you decided to drive, what alcohol and food you actually consumed that day, etc.


5 Mississippi DUI Don'ts


1. Don't take the portable breath test. This test is only administered to determine if you have alcohol on your breath and can only incriminate you. If you "pass" this test, you can still be arrested.


2. Don't consent to field sobriety tests. Studies have shown officers have failed "suspects" who have ingested zero alcohol. These tests are purely subjective, and no matter how well you think you performed, I can guarantee you what the officer's testimony will be about your test results. Officers are looking for specific clues, and these officers aren't sharing with the individuals being tested just what they are looking for exactly. Don't take these tests. You will likely be arrested, but taking these tests will do you very little good, if any.


3. Don't attempt to talk your way out of the situation, and please for the love of all things holy, do NOT argue with the officer. The entire situation is likely being filmed, and the more you talk, the higher the chances you will talk yourself right into a conviction. If you argue with the officer, your demeanor will be characterized as "combative" and "uncooperative" when the officer testifies. This does not help your defense in any way and makes you 100% memorable to the officer when your court date comes.


4. Don't go to court alone. You may have talked to friends and family who have given unsolicited, unprofessional, and unethical advice about whether you "need an attorney" or not. You should probably take a non-attorney's advice with a grain of salt, which is to say you should not take it at all. I am amazed at the number of people who tell us the arresting officer gives them advice on whether they should hire an attorney or not. See a conflict here? We handle DUI cases every week. You should hire an experienced and well qualified DUI attorney to defend your case and protect your driving privileges.


5. Don't let your attorney do all the work. Taking an active role in your defense is always helpful. Developing an honest relationship with your attorney will help everyone as we prepare your case for trial.


If you want someone who will do everything they can to protect your driving privileges and act immediately on your behalf, contact me today. I have represented clients all across the state of Mississippi. I can help you have a better understanding of your current situation with just a simple phone call.

Recently I was hired to defend a young man who was charged with one felony count of possession of marijuana. The entire amount seized by the police was 34.5 grams - just enough to be considered a felony by Mississippi law. According to a witness in the vehicle, the officer explained why he pulled my client over: "You have an out of county tag, and you were driving through this neighborhood late at night."

Here at Coxwell & Associates, we hear many different versions of traffic stops when we work cases, but I had never heard a witness say something to this effect. I advised them that when we receive the discovery in this case we would be able to determine exactly why the officer pulled my client over that night. If we had the facts on our side, a suppression hearing may be our best route.

A few months later after my client was indicted and arraigned, we requested all of the evidence the State had against my client. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as the local rules regarding discovery, basically demands the prosecution furnish to the defendant this evidence. Everyone has the right to confront those who have evidence against them, and a good criminal defense attorney will search through the evidence to understand exactly what the state intends to prove at trial. In this case, the report actually stated exactly what the witness had told me. My client was "guilty" of driving at night with an out of county tag, so in the mind of the officer, he could conduct a traffic stop and then search the vehicle without my client's consent. The United States Supreme Court and even the Mississippi Supreme Court begs to differ with the officer on this issue.

After a fifteen minute discussion with the assistant district attorney in their office, they agreed to dismiss the case and conceded the officer needed more training in this area.

This case is an example of why everyone should always discuss their case with a reputable attorney to explore what options are available under our current laws. When someone is charged with a crime, it is imperative to secure a knowledgeable attorney in that specific area. Find someone who you trust to work the case on your behalf. Call us and we will be glad to set up an appointment to discuss your case with you.

The attorneys at Coxwell & Associates concentrate their practice in several areas. They represent people who are seriously injured by another's wrongful conduct, including auto-truck accidents, dangerous products and drugs, injuries due to drunk drivers, and other types of injuries. The firm also concentrates on criminal defense in all state and federal courts.

The serious injury attorneys at Coxwell & Associates have offices in Jackson and Gulfport, MS. For the past several weeks the firm has been monitoring a Transvaginal Mesh Case that has been tried in Atlantic City, N.J. This case was styled Linda Gross V. Johnson & Johnson. Mrs. Gross had implanted into her body the Ethicon Gynecare Prolift System. She had already undergone 18 corrective surgeries. The harms and losses she had experienced were: inability to work, unable to have sexual relations with her husband, a level of pain that was so severe that she continuously used a pain pump. An excellent overview of the trial can be viewed at the Mesh Medical Device News Desk.

Continue reading "Transvaginal Mesh Litigation Update:$3.35 Million Verdict for Injured Woman." »

What a week. Between preparing for a murder trial, working on other cases which are set for trial later this year, coaching my son's 9 year old basketball and baseball teams, celebrating my 18th wedding anniversary (love you Wendy) and about a million other things, I forgot to blog! (You know who has been dropping subtle signs showing he's is not happy about my lack of blogging.) But today while I was updating my Facebook status, uh I mean, answering discovery on a serious personal injury case, it hit me what a great blog topic would be: notable criminal cases in Jackson, Mississippi this past week. So away we go...

Former Jackson police detective Natyyo Gray was tried and convicted for killing his one year old daughter this past week. This case raised concerns on several levels. First, why wasn't this a death penalty case? A person is accused of severely beating a one year old baby and somehow the death penalty is not a consideration? The Hinds County District Attorney's office has sought the death penalty is child abuse cases before. (See State v. Moffett for example). One has to wonder whether the defendant's former job as a Jackson police officer had anything to do with it.

The trial was pretty straight forward until Dr. Steven Hayne testified for the defense. Who is Dr. Hayne you might ask? Dr. Hayne was the former, self-described State medical examiner. Over the last several years, Dr. Hayne's testimony and qualifications have come under heavy scrutiny to say the least. The N.Y. Times has the most recent compilation on Dr. Hayne and here.

Dr. Hayne has testified numerous times for the Hinds County District Attorney's office including the Moffett case mentioned above. Yet, in the case this week, the Hinds County District Attorney's office sought to prevent Dr. Hayne from testifying claiming that he was not qualified to conduct or even to interpret autopsies. Dr. Hayne was cross examined extensively about his cases which have come under scrutiny as well as his qualifications. Dr. Hayne once stated that he did upwards of 1700 autopsies a year, nearly 7 times more than the National Association of Medical Examiners recommend. The assistant district attorney even accused Dr. Hayne of withholding this information from prosecutors to which Dr. Hayne responded "you knew".

They knew. They simply didn't care as long as they got convictions. Then when the cases came under scrutiny, prosecutors began distancing themselves from Dr. Hayne. But as my Dad liked to say "you dance with the one who brought you" and the prosecutors can't switch dance partners so easily.

For the number of people sitting on death row or in jail for life because of Dr. Hayne's testimony, the accusations leveled at Dr. Hayne by the Hinds County District Attorney may have breathed new life into their post conviction motions. IF there are Hinds County cases where the time of death is crucial or even the manner of death, these cases all need to be reviewed. Surely the Hinds County prosecutors cannot support Dr. Hayne after attacking his qualifications, right? Right? Oh wait, Dr. Hayne is actually scheduled to testify for the Hinds County District Attorney in a murder case I have set next month. Stay tuned...

In other local news, Vicksburg Mayor Paul Winfield was arrested on federal bribery charges. Sam Hall had a interesting take on Mr. Winfield in his blog yesterday. I have met Paul before and like him. I hope this was all a mistake.

In national news, Oscar Pistorius, the Blade Runner has been released on bail. The Judge found that he was not a threat to run. (rim shot please?). In all seriousness, this case is stranger than my partner Merrida Coxwell doing squirrel calls. (It's true, I caught Merrida doing a squirrel call at the office today. He claimed the squirrel was interested and approaching. I told him the squirrel was approaching because he was nuts.) Pistorius was charged with shooting his girlfriend. He claimed he thought she was an intruder in the bathroom and shot her. Four times. During the bail hearing, it was revealed that the police investigator who was the Government's main witness had just been charged with seven counts of attempted murder. He has been removed from the case.

Lastly, everyone's favorite love 'em and leave 'em ex-cop Drew Peterson has been denied a new trial. The former Chicago area sergeant was convicted of killing his third wife. His 4th wife is missing and presumed dead and guess who the primary suspect is? No, it's Drew Peterson, not Blade Runner. Peterson received 38 years for the killing. During sentencing, Peterson shrieked liked Axle Rose into the microphone "I did not kill Kathleen!" Peterson then rambled on for about 30 minutes (about the length of Guns and Roses "November Rain" video). Peterson promises to appeal his conviction and truth will light his way free. But Drew remember, it's "hard to hold a candle in the cold November rain".

Continue reading "Mississippi Criminal Law Weekly Roundup" »