Mississippi Lawyer Blog

Pac Man Jones is in trouble again. The Cincinnati Bengals cornerback was arrested today for punching a female bar patron in the face. Here's the video from ESPN. First Pac Man claimed that the lady threw a beer bottle at him. However, the video does not support that version of events. Perhaps she poured beer on him but clearly there was nothing thrown at him. In my opinion Jones clearly overreacted in striking the lady. Short of a woman using deadly force against a man I cannot fathom hitting a woman like this.

This is not Pac Man's first scrape with the law. He was makin' it rain in a Vegas strip club which lead to a gun fight. Pac Man was sued by the victims of the shoot out and a jury ordered him to pay $11.7 million in damages. One of the victims was paralyzed from the waist down. Pac Man also plead guilty to misdemeanors related to the shooting but received probation. Pac Man was suspended by the NFL and was out of a job. He ended up getting a second shot with the Cowboys and then with the Bengals. He had kept his nose clean for a while but I guess a Bengal can't change it's stripes.

Bars and nightclubs can be very dangerous places. My Dad warned me about them for years, referring to them as "beer joints". He often told me that anyone could come up to you in a crowd and stick a knife in you or you could be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Well, I didn't always listen to my Dad but I can tell you that he was dead on accurate about "beer joints".

I have represented many Mississippians who were involved in fights or altercations at clubs in both civil and criminal court. I am currently representing three (3) individuals who were all harmed at a night club in Hattiesburg, Mississippi on separate occasions. In those cases, we have alleged that the club was a haven for criminal activity and the owner failed to take steps to beef up security. We go to trial on one of these cases in September 2013. These cases are typically called "premises liability" cases. Anytime you at at a club you are considered a "business invitee". The "beer joint" owes you a duty to protect you from harm it is aware of or harm that it should be aware of. If a club breaches that duty it could be liable for any harm suffered by you while you are on the premises.

The other side of the coin are criminal acts which occur in beer joints. A lot of folks go to clubs to have fun but some idiots are just "too stupid to have a good time." This will lead to bar fights and serious charges.

In a lot of clubs, the owners will hire off duty police officers for security. That's good. However, should you become "imbibed" and get into an argument with these guys you could be charged with "disobeying a police officer", "assaulting a police officer", or "resiting arrest". The reason is that in Mississippi, police officers are deemed to be on duty 24/7 even when they are working off duty jobs. Should you be out at a beer joint which has an off duty cop working security, you should be mindful of that. We have represented many folks on these charges and they have been very difficult cases to defend.

Continue reading "Bar Fights can lead to Civil and Criminal Exposure in Mississippi" »

"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'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.

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" »

Getting stopped during the evening while in your car by law enforcement can be a frightening experience for some and a nervous experience for most. Around Jackson, in the cities of Madison, Clinton, Flowood, Ridgeland, Brandon, and Pearl, the police are very vigilant as the evening goes on. An experienced criminal defense lawyer can guide you through the rules and laws that apply to traffic stops. There are some rules that are simply commonsense.

I tell people that your chances of getting pulled over at night from 11:00 p.m. to midnight are high and after midnight the chances grower even greater. It is very true that the later in the night or early morning it becomes, the greater your odds of being stopped. This is because the police presume most people have been out at a bar or nightclub, and another reason I suspect is the police have nothing to do and want to catch someone doing something wrong.

Continue reading "Getting Stopped by Law Enforcement in your Car" »

Yes. Being convicted of a crime or facing criminal charges does not prevent you from filing bankruptcy. Questions surrounding your arrest record or criminal record are not asked as a part of a routine bankruptcy filing. Now, if you were filing bankruptcy to try to wipe out a fine or court ordered restitution, the records pertaining to these debts would come into play. Bankruptcy does not allow court fines and/or criminal restitution to be cancelled (wiped out).
However, you could file a chapter 13 bankruptcy which would allow you to pay any fines and/or restitution payments you have stretched out over a 60 month period. This could help you afford to make the required payments if you were struggling financially to make them as originally set by the court that convicted you.
Another way that bankruptcy could still be of benefit would be to wipe out your other unsecured debt (credit cards, medical bills, etc) to free up money to go toward paying court fines or court ordered restitution.

Attention Mississippi citizens, if you find yourself in front of a judge facing criminal charges do NOT act like this Florida lady. As you can see in the video, the young lady was arrested for possession of Xanax. In what should have been a routine appearance before the judge to set bail, the young lady showed no respect for the judge. She was very flippant and did not take the proceeding seriously at all. When the Judge asked how much her jewelry was worth, she responded "oh, it's Ric Ross" Obviously the Judge is not a fan of the hip hop heavyweight. The Judge first set her bail at $5,000 but when the lady said "adios" to him as she left the podium he ordered her bail to be raised to $10,000. (I disagree with the judge doing that. Bail is to guarantee that a person will appear in court and is not designed to punish a person. The judge was clearly punishing the lady by doubling the bail.)

When the young lady heard that the judge double her bond, she dropped an "F-bomb" (much like young Ralphie in Christmas Story) and then flipped off the Judge. The Judge then summoned the lady back to the podium and held her in direct criminal contempt and gave her 30 days in the hole. (Not to be confused with Humble Pie's "30 Days in the Hole".)

When a person is found to be in direct criminal contempt, which would include the type of behavior shown by the young lady in Florida, the judge can act immediately and impose punishment. There is no need for a separate hearing and the person is not entitled to get counsel. You go to Jail and you do not pass "GO" or collect your $200. (Speaking of Monopoly, did you see where the makers of the game replaced the iron game piece with a cat? Personally, I never cared for the iron. I was always wanted the race car. But, I digress.)

Some of you who read this (ok, I'm just assuming someone is reading this) may think that's pretty harsh. However, our municipal and justice courts in Hinds, Rankin and Madison are packed every time the door is open. Judges and their court staff sometimes deal with a hundred cases a day. These judges deal with a lot of, ahem, interesting personalities to say the least. Most of these judges put up with a lot more than I would.

Our municipal court and justice court judges in Madison, Rankin and Hinds County do an exceptional job dealing with citizens and allowing them to present their cases. They are much more patient than I would ever be. My advice still remains that if you are going to any court and want a trial then you need a lawyer. However, if you insist on representing yourself please brush up on your "lawyering skills" (might I suggest watching "My Cousin Vinny"?) and be respectful and courteous to the judge.

We get calls all the time by folks asking if they need an attorney to go to court. I tell them that our laws allow a person to represent themselves on any criminal charge, even murder. However, I always ask them if they had a broken arm would they go to a doctor or try to fix it on their own? I see folks in court all the time trying to represent themselves on misdemeanors such as DUI, speeding, no insurance, etc. I guess folks think that if the watch enough Judge Judy they can go play lawyer. What ultimately happens is the person doesn't know the court procedure and ends up arguing with the judge. This is not the person with whom you want to argue. The judge is deciding whether you are guilty or not so making him angry is not good.

Continue reading "How Not to Act in front of a Judge in a Criminal Case" »

We receive numerous phone calls every day here at Coxwell & Associates regarding serious questions about criminal law. We know these questions do not develop out of thin air. When we hear phone calls with the same concerns from people across the state, but especially in a particular county or city, we understand that a problem exists, and it is usually a problem that always benefits the prosecution of an unknowing defendant.

People are showing up for their first court appearance in Justice Courts and Municipal Courts in Mississippi and they are being presented with a document known as a "Waiver of Attorney."

What does it mean to sign a waiver? Well, in simple terms it means that the person who signs this waiver is giving up certain rights they are afforded by the United States and Mississippi Constitutions.

This "waiver of attorney" is given to defendants as they stand before the court. These defendants are usually there to simply plead "not guilty", receive a trial date, and then go hire an attorney before their trial date. While we recommend hiring an attorney as soon as you possibly can after you are arrested, we do understand that sometimes people simply need more time to secure the perfect attorney for their case. When a person signs that "Waiver" in open court, the clerk places the waiver in the file and keeps it until your next court date. If you hire an attorney before that trial date and come back to court, you will not have any problem. But if you show up without an attorney and you explain that you could not find one or that you simply could not afford an attorney, the court will use that waiver against you. They will hold it up in court and say, "Since I have this waiver of attorney in the file, we will proceed with this trial against you without the assistance of counsel."

The problem with this "waiver of attorney" form is that most people sign documents they do not understand. Without guidance from someone who is not trying to put you in jail, it can be difficult to understand the document you're being asked to sign in front of everyone. How many people are comfortable with admitting they cannot read or cannot understand a document when everyone is looking and waiting on them? Very few.

"Should I sign this waiver they gave me in court?" is a question I hear constantly. The answer is always "no" when it comes to waiving anything in the criminal justice system. The rules are there for a reason, and the court must play by those rules unless they have a way around them, and in this situation, that way around them is with a "waiver of attorney."

Never sign anything you don't fully understand. If you have a document that you need help understanding, call me at Coxwell & Associates, and I will help you as much as I can. To make things easier on everyone, including yourself, just call me before you walk into any courtroom setting, and I will do everything I can to assist you with your case.