Mississippi Lawyer Blog

Two motorists in Mississippi have been shot in separate incidents leaving police to wonder if the killer is posing as a police officer. Police believe that the killer is using fake emergency lights to pull over unsuspecting motorists before robbing and killing them. Officials have advised motorists not to pull over for anyone they think might not be a police officer. Instead, they are advising motorists to simply drive to a public place and then pull over.

Years ago in Jackson, the same thing was occurring. A person was impersonating a police officer and pulling over women who were driving alone at night. Once again, police officials advised motorists to drive to a public area before pulling over.

I have advised my wife that if she is ever "blue lighted" she should activate her emergency lights and travel safely to the nearest public area before stopping. In today's world, any maniac can paint a car to make it look like a police car. Why should a woman stop in the middle of the night on a deserted road with the number of lunatics running around? And hey, who is to say that a legitimate police officer doesn't have improper purpose in pulling over a motorist? If a police officer elects to give my wife a ticket for "failure to comply with blue lights" then she knows a good attorney to help her out with that ticket. At least she will be alive.

Continue reading "Mississippi Killer Posing as Cop? Drivers Beware!" »

A tragic accident occurred over the weekend in which three (3) Jackson, Mississippi children were killed and 7 others were injured. A preliminary investigation revealed that a Ford Expedition was carrying 10 people, two more people than recommended by the manufacturer. The investigation also showed that the tires on the vehicle were not the correct size. In fact, the tires on the vehicle were not capable of carrying the weight of the vehicle, occupants and luggage. Finally, the left back tire had low tire pressure resulting in a blow out. Once the tire blew out, the driver was apparently unable to control the vehicle leading to the crash. Sadly, none of the occupants were wearing safety restraints and the children were not in child safety seats.

It is critically important to follow the manufacturer's guidelines for tire size, pressure, and occupancy loads. In today's world, we get too busy to check such things or entrust them to others. If we can learn anything from this tragic accident it should be that vehicle maintenance is imperative. The most precious cargo we carry day after day is our family. Please take time to check your tire pressure when going on long trips or even day to day driving. Check to make sure the tires you have on your vehicle are the correct size. Lastly, please fasten your safety belts and make sure your children are properly restrained. Routine maintenance and safety belts can be a lifesaver.

Continue reading "Overloading, Low Tire Pressure, Wrong Tires Cited in Mississippi Fatal Crash" »

For over thirty two (32) years I have been practicing intense criminal defense and representing people who have sustain serious and permanent injuries due to someone else's carelessness or refusal to follow the rules of safety. My practice has been all over the State of Mississippi, especially in the Metro-Jackson area of Hinds, Madison, and Rankin Counties. I cannot begin to relate the number of times I have been involved in a criminal trial dealing with a pseudo-science expert with a certificate, white coat, and full of his/her own opinion. How many people have lost their freedom, gone to prison, lost a job, or been denied other privileges due to scientific opinion that was really nothing more than a subjective opinion that slanted toward the prosecutor? Well, I hope this type of pseudo-scientific testimony has largely come to an end.

The National Academy of Sciences was created by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. It is a corporation that explores and promotes advancement in the various sciences, including engineering and medicine. What interests us for this blog article is a comprehensive study and report the Academy issued in 2009. This report determined that many of the so called "Forensic Sciences" were nothing more than glorified opinions with almost no basis in scientific opinion. Fingerprints, hair analysis, gunshot characteristics, hand-writing analysis, blood splatters and many others are not true sciences. That is not to say that these areas do not have something to add to criminal investigations, however in the past they have been revered to greatly and permitted to express iron-clad opinions far beyond the ability of the study. As the National Academy of Sciences noted many are nothing more than opinions without any support in the scientific method. Many of these so called "sciences" cannot offer a method that can be independently repeated and will lead to the same result. And it is not very hard to become an expert in many of these fields.

There have been so many innocent people convicted over the years based on these hokey- pokey sciences. Here in Mississippi several men were spending decades in jail based on the opinions of Michael West, an odontologist who claimed to be an expert in over fifteen (15) different specialties. I don't think you can find a person in the forensic field who claims as much "expertise" as Mr. West. I would venture to say that there is not a field Mr. West touched where he did not consider himself and expert and he was glad to tell the jury! Hopefully Mr. West's days of participation in sending innocent people to jail are over. Recently I was assisting the Mississippi Innocence Project in a case in South Mississippi. During a deposition of Mr. West he testified under oath that he no longer believed his testimony is scientifically reliable and that it should not be admitted into court. Whew....Lady Justice just breathed a sigh of relief.

We will have to wait and watch for the advances in these so called "forensic science fields." Perhaps with advances in technology some can crawl back up from where they have fallen. But with all the advances in spy and search technology they may not be needed since the day seems to be coming when we will all be monitored by some company or the government on a twenty four (24) hour a day, seven (7) days a week basis.

Continue reading "Forensic Sciences or Forensic Fraud?" »

Using an employer's computer in the City of Jackson, The City of Madison, The City of Ridgeland or Clinton and in Hinds, Rankin, and Madison Counties may be a crime if you exceed the authorized use or access the computer without authorization for what you want to do. It could be a crime all across Mississippi, but that is not true all across the United States.

Did you know that some prosecutors wanted to call you a criminal and convict you if you used your work computer to look at a sports score? But what if you accessed your company's computer to obtain the names and addresses of customers and then you left with those customers to start a competing business? Is that a crime? The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has said in a 9-2 opinion that the latter case was not a crime. U.S. v. Nosal.

This criminal prosecution arose out of a 1984 federal law called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this law is an anti-hacking law, not a law to "make criminals of anyone who violates employer computer policies or a website's terms of service." The turning point in this case seemed to be that the employee had authority to access the company computer and database, though he did not have authority to take customers' names for his own use. But the fact the employee had authority seems to have saved him from prosecution. Certainly the employee could have civil liability and other legal issues if he signed a "covenant not to compete" with his employer.

The dissenting judges in the Ninth Circuit case did not agree with the majority. Judge Silverman wrote that what happened was a crime because the employee "accessed the computer without authorization or exceed his authorized used." It is certainly easy to understand the position of Judge Silverman.

But you cannot feel too comfortable because the 9th Circuit does not represent the opinion all over the United States. In United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir.2010) the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which governs Mississippi, held that is was a crime when an employee accessed confidential information in a way not authorized by the employer. And the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held it was a crime when an employee of the Social Security Administration exceeded his authorization and obtained information on former girlfriends and potential paramours. United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir.2010).

I think the bottom line may be something like this: You should follow the rules set by your employer for use of computers and computer information. If you check sports score or access your Google Account, I don't think it will be considered a crime. But if you steal information, access and use information for your own benefit or to the detriment of your employer, you may be committing a crime. The best way is the safe way. Better safe than sorry.

Continue reading "IS A CRIME TO USE YOUR EMPLOYER'S COMPUTER?" »

From everyone here at Coxwell & Associates - best wishes for a wonderful Easter weekend!
Let this video start it off with a smile....

I'm sure that you have heard about the tragic death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford Florida. I completely understand the outrage. We live in a country that has a very scarred racial past. Even though we have made great strides in racial conciliation over the years, we still have a long way to go. So I know when a white person shoots and kills an unarmed African American teenager and then the white person is not arrested that there is going to be public outrage. And that's ok. Public debate is part of what makes this country great.

But what about when that outrage leads to a call for vigilante justice? The New Black Panther Party leader, Hashim Nzinga, recently offered a $10,000 bounty to the person who captured George Zimmerman, the man who allegedly shot Trayvon. (Bounties are not a good thing. Ask the New Orleans Saints and their fans if you don't believe me.)This is completely unnecessary and will only lead to more problems. It's a very irresponsible "call to action" . Mr Nzinga was recently arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm. I expect that type of conduct from a person like Mr. Nzinga; someone who is trying to gain publicity for his New Black Panther Partry. (I preferred the "old" Black Panther Party by the way). But what's Spike Lee's excuse?

Continue reading "Do We Want Vigilante "Justice"?" »

Mississippi is one of the most obese states in the country. It is a well-known fact that obese people have a Continue reading "Important Announcement: Diabetes Drug Actos is a Major Problem for Mississippi" »

I am writing this blog not only for our clients in Hinds, Rankin, and Madison Counties who might be questioned in a criminal case, but so everyone across Mississippi who may be questioned understands their legal rights.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a person from being forced to provide evidence to the government for their own prosecution. The Amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Since the very first days of our country the phrase "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" had to be interpreted or given meaning by the courts. What did this mean? Did it mean that a person did not have to testify? Did a person have to provide physical samples like blood, hair, hand-writing? What about documents, did they have to be provided to the government?
For years after the passage of the Constitution the U.S. Supreme Court handed down decisions telling the country what could be compelled from a person and what could not. The various decisions are fairly complex but as a general rule the Fifth Amendment protects a person from having to provide the government verbal statements that can be used against the individual in court.

It is fascinating to look back at the history of the Fifth Amendment. Up until the mid-1960's the Fifth Amendment did not even apply to the states and did not apply in police interrogations. Does that shock you? We all understand now that the Fifth Amendment applies to all custodial interrogations, but for almost 200 years the Fifth Amendment simply meant that you could not be compelled or forced to give testimony by legal compulsion. The police could question you without telling you about your rights and since the police could not force you to talk, it was not believed that the Fifth Amendment applied. Fortunately that changed and another great change came onto the legal environment in the name of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (19660.

The Miranda decision made a significant change in the law of interrogations. First, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment applied outside of court proceedings to custodial interrogations. Second, the Court held that custodial interrogation could be intimidating and before a person could be questioned while in police custody he/she had to be given what has now known as the Miranda Warnings. It is important to note here that custodial interrogation is defined as those times when a person is taken into custody against their will or when the person reasonably believes they are not free to leave based on the surrounding facts. So, a person can voluntarily go do to the police department and give a statement. A person can be approached by law enforcement on the street and voluntarily give a statement. The police can come to your home and if you invite them in and give a statement, it may be used against you. In each of these circumstances if you give a statement it can be used against you. As a practical matter police almost always give a person their Miranda Warnings even when the person is not in custody. The police do this to "play it safe" and avoid a person later arguing they believed they were in custody and were not given their Miranda Warnings.

I highly recommend that any person whether in custody or not invoke their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. If you are the target of an investigation invoke your right to remain silent and consult a lawyer. If you are a subject of an investigation exercise your right to remain silent and consult a lawyer. If you get stopped on the street, in your car, or if you get a visit from police asking your questions or asking about your family, invoke your right to remain silent and seek legal advice. Do police like it when a person exercises their right to remain silent? No they do not. But when a police office is in trouble, they quickly assert their rights and they know them well. Also, in many jurisdictions the police unions have provisions in their contracts prohibiting internal affairs from even talking to a police officer after the officer is involved in a shooting with a citizen. The police argue that the event is too traumatic and the police needs time to consult with a representative before giving a statement. Well, being questioned by the police is traumatic for the general public-the ordinary man or woman on the street-so why shouldn't you also exercise your rights and speak to a lawyer before you talk to the police.

Mississippi has a Constitution also and in that document there is a phrase very similar to the Fifth Amendment. I won't go into detail in this article about the Mississippi provision dealing with the right to remain silent. You should note that Mississippi is bound to accept the rulings of the Federal Courts when the Federal Courts interpret the Federal Constitution. However, the Mississippi Supreme Court has the right and authority to interpret the Mississippi Constitution in such a way that it provides its citizens greater protection than the Federal Constitution.

I decided to write this blog article because I recently read an editorial by former New York Mayor, Ed Koch. It was Mr. Koch's opinion that the Miranda decision was useless and unnecessary. I quote to you just a portion:

I have never understood why the Miranda rule was ever imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court. A significant number of people committing crimes want to confess their guilt. Why in the world do we want to inhibit them from doing so? Even where the Miranda warning is provided, there are large numbers of putative defendants who will proceed to confess their wrongdoing. Isn't that good? It certainly is good for society. Of course, if the confession is forcibly obtained - physical duress in any form - it should be excluded. But if voluntary, why not use it in the trial that follows? I have always believed the supporters of maintaining the rule do so because they believe it is unfair that because a smart criminal would never confess, whether or not they were warned under Miranda, we are taking advantage of the less intelligent or less informed criminal who gives in to the normal impulse that many people have, which is to get their guilt off their chest and confess to the comforting police officer who tells them their confession and cooperation could help them at sentencing.

This is an interesting opinion. I guess it is to me because I have grown up as a lawyer knowing the Miranda Rule and respecting that it provides the ordinary citizen some protection against oppressive police conduct. Of course some police officers find sneaky ways to get around the Miranda Warnings. I don't think however Miranda should be abandoned. I would hasten to point out that when the Miranda decision was first handed down, it only passed and became law by one vote of the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling was 5 judges for the decision and 4 against the decision. The majority won and ruled. Over the years as the U.S. Supreme Court changed, so were changes made in the Miranda Rule. I think that we could easily see the end of the Miranda Rule one day but I hope not. Until that time remember what I have written time and time again: When in doubt demand to speak to a lawyer before you speak to law enforcement. It is your RIGHT. And, anything you say, even if you are told it is "off the record," can and will be used against you. Use your rights if your need to and come to speak with us.

Continue reading "Is The Right to Remain Silent on the Way Out?" »

A whistleblower is loosely defined as a person who reports to the government the conduct of a company that is either illegal or dishonest. Of course you could have a whistleblower who reports to the government on improper or illegal conduct by employees in government. Whistleblowers are protected under the False Claims Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and many other federal laws. In fact there is not one law governing false claims or improper conduct by businesses or government but many laws depending on the type of fraud or waste.

The various federal and in some instances state laws that are enacted to protect whistleblowers do not always work perfectly. There are many reported cases where companies and government officials retaliated against the employee who reported improper or wrongful conduct and the employee had to go to court to protect his/her job. I do think that this area of the law is improving and we are witnessing much more employee protection than ever before in this country. There is actually an Office of Whistleblower Protection Program. One of the attractive features of many of the whistleblower laws is that they offer a financial incentive for reporting on departments in the government or businesses that engage in improper waste, spending, or violate laws. For example under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) the Securities and Exchange Commission can provide money payments for people who report violations of security laws.

The term "qui tam" is also heard or written about in connection with a whistleblower action. Qui Tam is part of the False Claims Act which permits a private citizen with the help of an attorney to file a lawsuit against any company or person who may have committed fraud upon the United States Government. Once the lawsuit is filed and the government is notified, the government has the right to intervene and become a party to the lawsuit. Some of the "qui tam" whistleblower lawsuits have earned citizens millions of dollars for the fraud they reported.

You usually hear of large monetary awards in qui tam lawsuits or whistleblower actions involving medical fraud and waste. The Obama administration has made uncovering and preventing fraud in the health care field one of its priorities. Here are just a few of the major awards: JP Morgan paid $45 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit alleging it charged veterans hidden fees in mortgage refinancing; BOA whistleblower gets $1 million;; Dynacorp agrees to pay $7.7 million in whistleblower case. At Coxwell & Associates we have helped people report medical fraud and abuse. The healthcare costs in this nation are rising astronomically. While lawsuits are blamed by big business and the insurance industry, the amount of money lost to fraud and waste is far in excess of the cost of medical negligence cases. Payments to people who have been injured by medical errors or negligence in this country amounts to less than 1% of the costs of medical care costs but medical waste and fraud is estimates at $700 billion a year. .

If you have knowledge of fraud or waste in government contracts, over-billing to the government in medical care cases, improper charges in mortgage cases, violations of the law dealing with securities do not hesitate to call and schedule an appointment with one of our attorneys. We are willing to help you investigate and explore the possibility of filing a whistleblower or qui tam case.

Continue reading "Whistleblowers Help Keep Businesses and Government Honest" »

If you live in Madison, Rankin, or Hinds County, or anywhere in Mississippi for that matter and you are a hunter, keep a gun for self-defense, or you are a gun enthusiast and collector you will be pleased to learn that a Federal District Court in Maryland has issued an opinion strongly supporting the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. In the case of Woollard et al v. Sheridan, et al, Mr. Woollard sued Baltimore County, MD, when he was denied a concealed gun permit because he failed to demonstrate "a good and substantial need" for obtaining a concealed gun permit. In this case Mr. Woollard had previously been given 2 prior concealed weapons permits after he had been assaulted by a person breaking into his home. After several years had passed the government refused to renew his permit holding that he had not provided justification or need for a weapon.

The District Court's opinion made a great deal of sense. As the Judge wrote, "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights.... The right's existence is all the reason he needs." When you think about the statement by the Court it might apply to many of our civil rights that seem to be chipped away each and every year, like the right to privacy. Why do we need the right to privacy? Well, we don't have to give a reason. We should have it because it is a right and no explanation is necessary!

The Woollard case was handled by attorney Alan Gura. Mr. Gura is an attorney who is has handled several 2nd Amendment gun cases and he maintains a website entitled Second Amendment Foundation. In 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), for the first time ever in America's history the United States Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution protects and individuals right to keep and bear arms. Other gun restrictions have also been struck down by the Court: Parker v. District of Columbia struck down a regulation requiring all firearms to be "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) the Heller ruling was made applicable to the states.

Based on these ruling I believe unreasonable gun restrictions everywhere are subject to constitutional challenge. I suspect at some point a challenge is going to be made to the law that prohibits a felon from owing or possessing a firearm. After all at the time the Constitution was written if the colonists and Framers of the Constitution did not have such a law, then the Judges on the U.S. Supreme Court who call themselves "Originalists,"- meaning they look for the original meaning of the individual Bill of Rights at the time the Rights were created- may just vote to hold laws prohibiting a felon from possessing a weapon unconstitutional. I think the NRA is backing many of these pro-gun laws so look for more constitutional challenges in the future.

Continue reading "The Right to Bear Arms Wins Again" »

In Mississippi, 28% of all drivers do not have insurance. So out of every 7 cars you pass on the road, 2 cars do not have any insurance! This is the highest percentage of uninsured drivers in the United States.

It's important that you double check your insurance policy for "uninsured motorist coverage". This is the part of your auto policy that protects you from an uninsured driver.

Make sure that your uninsured motorist coverage is equal to your liability coverage. Many insurance agents will give you a lower uninsured motorist coverage amount, but since this is the part of the policy that protects you, you want the maximum coverage available.

The rate of complaints about debt collectors to the Federal Trade Commission has more than tripled since 2003. There were over 300,000 complaints just in the past 5 years!

The top complaints were that debt collectors are demanding and collecting money that people do not owe. They won't accept payments by mail, but demand access to the person's bank account. It should go without saying, but in looking at the number of people that are complying with these debt collector demands - let me say this out loud - Don't ever give anyone your bank account information.

As as a bankruptcy attorney, I talk to people every day that are being abused by the tactics used by debt collectors. These collectors will stop at nothing to collect money whether owed or not, making many people believe they will go to jail if they do not pay immediately. You can go to jail for a lot of things, but not for ordinary debt.

Same sex marriage has been a hot button issue for quite some time. Last week, two major events took place on the west coast. In California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the state's ban on same sex marriages (Proposition 8) was unconstitutional. Then just one (1) day later, Washington passed a law allowing same sex couples to marry.

Prop 8 had been approved by 52% of California voters in 2008. The three judge panel declared the ban unconstitutional because it singled a specific group of individuals- in this case homosexuals- for no reason. In other words, in order to "discriminate" against a specific group of individuals, a state must have a compelling reason. The majority of the judges found California had no such reason; however, the lone dissenting judge found California's ban was constitutional because the state had an interest in the preservation of families. The judge who issued the opinion on behalf of the Ninth Circuit said the ban "serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."

Even though the Court of Appeals declared Prop 8 unconstitutional, the same sex marriage issue is far from over in California. Opponents of the decision are already planning an appeal to the United States Supreme Court to review the decision. Additionally, Judge Vaughn Walker- the judge who initially declared the ban unconstitutional at the district level (level below the Court of Appeals) in 2010- has a conflict of interest hearing set for later this year. Critics of the decision allege the Judge should have disclosed his sexual orientation due to the decision he was being asked to render. The Ninth Circuit refused to invalidate Judge Walker's decision on that basis and held a judge's sexual orientation was not a basis that would allow the court to overturn that judicial decision.

Prior to Washington's recent law, six states and the District of Columbia allowed same sex couples to marry: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. The Washington House of Representatives approved the bill last week and then the Republicans and Democrats of the Washington Senate- in a 55-43 vote- approved it. Washington Governor Chris Gregoire is set to sign the bill later this week. Yet same sex couples will not be allowed to marry until ninety (90) days after Gov. Gregoire signs the legislation. Even then, Washington voters- like the California voters in 2008- will be allowed to vote to decide whether they wish to overturn the legislature and Governor's decision to allow for same sex marriages in their state.

Mississippi currently has a ban on same sex marriages. The ban was initially issued in former Governnor Kirk Fordice's executive order in 1996. This was codified in Mississippi Code Annotated § 93-1-1 ("Any marriage between persons of the same gender is prohibited and null and void from the beginning. Any marriage between persons of the same gender that is valid in another jurisdiction does not constitute a legal or valid marriage in Mississippi.") 86% of Mississippi voters amended the Mississippi Constitution in 2004 to reflect this thereby declaring the ban appropriate. However, Mississippi does allow single homosexuals to adopt a child (Miss. Code Ann. § 93-17-3(5): "Adoption by couples of the same gender is prohibited."). The individual cannot be in a relationship or be part of a couple wishing to adopt (Miss. Code Ann. § 93-17-3: "Couples of the same gender may not adopt.")

Regardless of how you feel on the subject of same sex marriage, the debate over it in our court system does not seem to have an end in sight. Perhaps the United States Supreme Court will take California's appeal during their next session and shed light on this issue.

The Clarion Ledger had an article in Sunday's paper about a Mississippi woman who was arrested for buying Sudafed in Alabama with plans to bring it back in to Mississippi. In Mississippi, you must have a prescription to purchase any items containing pseudoephedrine. In Alabama, you can purchase these items over the counter. However, tt is against the law to purchase Sudafed, or any other items containing pseudoephedrine, in another state and bring it back into Mississippi. The lady in the article claims she was forced to sign a confession admitting that she purchased the drugs to make crystal meth. She was found guilty and sentenced to one year in jail. She has an appeal pending.

I completely understand the need to limit the amount of pseudoephedrine containing products purchased by consumers. Crystal Meth is an epidemic in our nation and its use/production must be curtailed. However, our laws can overreach sometimes and this is an example of one which does just that. If you have a young child in dire need of Sudafed at 2 in the morning you can no longer go down to the 24 hour Walgreens and pick up a box. If you wake up with a sinus issue and have no time to go to the doctor's office (don't get me started on the wait here) to get a prescription for Sudafed, you are stuck trying some other remedy.

The Legislature had good intentions when they enacted this law but look at all the other products you can purchase which can get you high: airplane glue, whipped cream (cans), cough syrup, gasoline, keyboard cleaner, fresh ground Nutmeg. These are just a few examples. Is the Mississippi Legislature going to pass laws on these items? They are just as addictive and harmful, if not more so, than crystal meth. And these items don't even have to be mixed up and cooked.

Continue reading "Mississippians: Beware about purchasing pseudoephedrine and other products used to make meth" »

At Coxwell & Associates, we represent people who have suffered serious injuries from accidents. However, we are limited as to what we can do for our clients (and not just by tort reform). Our legal system allows attorneys to recover money for their client's damages which includes long term medical expenses. And while it is fulfilling to help them obtain financial resources so that they can maintain their medical treatment, we know that many of our clients will never fully recover.

Sunday's Clarion Ledger had an article concerning brain injury victims in Mississippi that I found both interesting and sad. According to the article, "brain-injury survivors in Mississippi.....lack..long-term care facilities, such as Arkansas' Timber Ridge, or the Shepherd Center in Atlanta.." It is simply amazing in this day and age that Mississippi does not have a long term facility to assist our citizens who have suffered a brain injury.

The brain is a fascinating organ and a healthy brain is vital to a long and fulfilling life. Do you know why you can't tickle yourself? Because your brain distinguished between unexpected external touch and your own touch. When we blink, do you know why the "world doesn't go dark"? It's because our brain keeps the world luminated for us (we blink 20,000 times a day). Learn more more interesting brain facts here.

Continue reading "Mississippi Brain Injury Accident Victims Need Long Term Recovery Facility" »