One question among many that has never been answered is where did Jim Daws suddenly get over a hundred thousand dollars to pay for a piece of property right around the time his story changed in this case?
Impeachment Points – Witness James Daws
This memorandum outlines grounds for impeaching the credibility and testimony of James Daws, a key witness for the prosecution, particularly concerning his claims about providing David Coffin’s address and phone number to Scott Davis. Daws’s testimony on this critical point is contradicted by other evidence and prior statements, and his credibility is questionable due to potential bias.
**I. Inconsistent Claims Regarding the Timing of Providing Coffin’s Address:**
James Daws testified at trial that he provided David Coffin’s address and phone number to Scott Davis on **Friday, December 6, 1996**. He stated that this date sparked his “initial suspicion”. However, other evidence and Daws’s own statements undermine this specific timeline:
* Scott Davis told Clayton Turner on **Wednesday, December 11, 1996**, that he had hired a private investigator who had given him Coffin’s address, but that Scott had never been there. This indicates Scott obtained the address via a private investigator sometime before or on December 11th, but does not specify the exact date, leaving open the possibility it was not December 6th.
* Phone records introduced or discussed at trial support that Scott Davis spoke with Investigator Daws on **Tuesday, December 10, 1996**, specifically an incoming call lasting over 1 minute at 9:39 A.M. at Scott’s work. This record supports that Scott received the address during a call on Tuesday, December 10th, as the defense and Scott have always suggested.
* Daws himself testified at trial that, based on his knowledge and memory, he had **no contact** from Mr. Davis on **Tuesday, December 10, 1996**, until retrieving messages Wednesday morning. This claim is directly contradicted by the phone record evidence of the 9:39 AM call on Tuesday, December 10th.
* Jonathan Levine, an attorney representing Scott Davis, had a telephone conversation with James Daws on **Wednesday, December 11, 1996**. Levine’s contemporaneous notes of this conversation, entered into evidence, **do not contain any mention** of Daws having given the address to Scott Davis on the preceding Friday, December 6th, or that Scott Davis planned to do surveillance or drive-bys of Coffin’s residence. Levine testified that Daws did **not** mention providing the address on Friday, December 6th, during this conversation, and stated that such information would have been noteworthy enough for him to have made a note. The absence of this crucial detail in a contemporaneous record of a conversation with Daws, occurring just days after the alleged event, directly contradicts Daws’s trial testimony that he provided the address on Friday, December 6th.
* It is proven that Daws’s claim of providing the address on Friday, December 6th, does not appear in records and only came forward after the reward was posted. Daws literally contacted the Coffin family the day the reward came out.
This pattern of conflicting evidence regarding the date Daws allegedly provided the address—contrasting Daws’s trial testimony with phone records, his own contradictory testimony about Tuesday, and the absence of the claim in contemporaneous notes of a conversation with the defense—provides strong grounds for impeachment.
**II. Inconsistent Claims Regarding the Accuracy of the Address Provided:**
Daws’s testimony regarding the accuracy of the address he claims to have provided is also inconsistent:
* In his grand jury testimony, Daws testified to giving Scott Davis an address that was **not even Coffin’s**. Scott always claimed consistently over decades that Daws provided him the incorrect address.
* At trial, Daws testified that he gave Scott Davis the **correct address** (951 West Conway Road, Northwest, Atlanta) but the **wrong phone number** (874-0523 instead of 274-7774) on Friday, December 6, 1996.
This inconsistency regarding the accuracy of the very information Daws claims to have provided (an incorrect address in grand jury vs. correct address but incorrect phone number at trial) further undermines the reliability of his testimony on this point.
**III. Potential Bias and Motive for Testimony:**
James Daws did not come forward with his information until 1999 or 2000, **after** the reward in the case was posted. Daws was motivated by this reward money.
* The prosecution’s office investigated whether Daws received financial compensation for his testimony and participation with Scott Davis. Even the prosecution initially believed Daws was corrupt enough to take a payment. Only after Daws changed his testimony to incriminate Scott did the prosecution give Daws credibility. In fact, the prosecution never even investigated how Daws was able to purchase a property suddenly with a large amount of cash during the time frame of his changing testimony.
* The existence of a large reward and the timing of Daws coming forward provide a potential motive for Daws to fabricate or exaggerate his account of providing information to Scott Davis that would place Scott in proximity to the victim’s residence prior to the crime. Daws was “motivated by money” and “not telling the truth”.
**IV. Other Areas for Impeachment:**
* Daws made a prior inconsistent statement about using a pay phone when questioned about phone records, claiming he did although the records did not support a call from a pay phone at the relevant time, and arguing he didn’t use a cell phone due to cost while billing Scott for mileage. Daws in fact refused to give Scott Coffin’s address on Tuesday until he promised to send Daws the remaining balance for the search. This is why Scott sent Daws a money order on Tuesday after the call with Daws. Why else would Scott have suddenly sent Daws money after this phone call?
* Attorneys representing Scott Davis sent letters to Daws stating that the information he possessed was privileged and that he should refer any inquiries from police or the District Attorney’s office to the attorneys. Daws wrote to the attorneys in May 1997 requesting a letter memorializing that he was working for the attorneys and under their direction. While the defense asserting privilege over Daws’s work is separate from whether Daws lied on the stand, these interactions highlight Daws’s relationship with the defense team and the legal efforts surrounding his potential testimony.
Daws in fact ignored the relationship with the attorneys once the reward was offered and sent David Coffin’s father a letter requesting that he subpoena Daws concerning information because Daws clearly wanted the reward.
**Conclusion:**
Based on the inconsistencies between James Daws’s trial testimony and other evidence, his prior inconsistent statements, and his potential motive for testifying, his claims regarding the date and details of providing David Coffin’s address to Scott Davis are subject to substantial impeachment. Specifically, his testimony that he provided the address on Friday, December 6, 1996, is undermined by evidence suggesting contact on Tuesday, December 10th, and the absence of the Friday claim in contemporaneous notes from December 11th. Furthermore, his inconsistent statements about the accuracy of the address itself, coupled with his delay in coming forward until after a reward was offered, provide strong grounds for questioning his credibility and the veracity of his testimony.
This memorandum provides the basis for a focused and effective impeachment of James Daws at trial, arguing that his testimony concerning the timing and details of providing David Coffin’s address is unreliable and likely fabricated or exaggerated.
Be First to Comment