Opinion ID: 2982626
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: David Johnson.

Text: At Gravley’s trial, David Johnson, another Big Sandy inmate and an orderly, testified that Gravley had admitted to him in “several” conversations that Gravley and Milburne had attacked Peterson. Johnson had met Gravley in November of 2006; according to Johnson, [Gravely] told me that ‘they.” He didn’t—I can’t recall if he actually mentioned all three of them attacked Mr. Peterson. But he did mention “they.” And I’m—I was assuming, or I’m assuming that “they” meant everyone that was in the cell. But they beat, kicked, and stomped Mr. Peterson until, I guess, a final kick to his throat by—by, by Mr. Gravley, and Mr. Peterson stopped moving. Johnson also testified that both Gravley and Milburne were members of the Bloods gang and that Gravley, who was senior to Milburne in the gang, had ordered Milburne to attack Peterson and to take responsibility for the attack. In exchange for the attack, Milburne was to “get rank” in the gang and to be paid as much as $60,000.00. About a year before Gravley’s trial, Johnson had told an investigator that he “hadn’t heard that” Gravley or Milburne had attacked Peterson and “d[id]n’t know where [that information] came from[.]” Johnson also told the investigator “[t]hat Mr. Gravley had nothing to do—told [Johnson] he had nothing to do with [Peterson’s death].” At trial, however, Johnson insisted that what he had told the investigator was false: “I was trying to protected Deuce, I’m sorry, Mr. Gravley because of my grievance with the federal government.”6 As Johnson explained, he had an incentive to protect Gravley: 6 The indictment against Gravley identified him as “Dwaune [Gravley], aka Deuce,” and there was testimony at Gravley’s trial that he referred to himself as “OG [Original Gangster] Deuce.” (Gravley’s name originally was misspelled “Gravely.”) Johnson’s alleged “grievance with the federal government” had to do with his having been promised support in pursuing a sentencing reduction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 in a previous, unrelated matter and not having gotten it. Gravley’s motion to strike “Deuce” from the indictment was unsuccessful. - 10 - Case No. 11-6123 United States v. Gravley Lawyer: Is there a downside, from an inmate’s standpoint, for testifying against another inmate in a case of this nature? Johnson: Yes. There is—there is a big downside. Lawyer: And what is that? Johnson: I guess the ultimate would be murder, someone killing me for testifying in this trial. Lawyer: Is there kind of an unwritten rule within the institutions about one inmate testifying against another? Johnson: Yes, there is. Lawyer: And what is that? Johnson: Inmates are called—are labeled snitches. But in the federal system, they don’t actually call them a snitch, they call them hot, h-o-t. Lawyer: Okay. Johnson: And if you are labeled a snitch or hot, there are consequences.