Opinion ID: 2982626
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alleged Admissions.

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.
Gravley was transferred to a facility in Manchester, Kentucky, where he spoke with another inmate, Andre Player, after Peterson’s death. Player testified that Gravley boasted about having been the most senior member of the Bloods gang at Big Sandy, describing himself as “the head guy,” and said that a gang-related murder had happened in his cell there. Gravley allegedly “told [Player] that he—he made the murder happen, that he orchestrated it.” According to Player, [t]here was—there was other inmates in the cell with [Gravley]. And him having a high rank in the gang that he was in, he had another guy in his cell commit the murders with—I believe he said at the time it was knives. Player also recalled that the name of the murdered inmate was “Peterson”; that he had heard Peterson’s name only from Gravley; and that “[t]here was another guy, who actually is the guy that [Gravley] told me he had do the murder; I believe his name was Milburne.” - 11 - Case No. 11-6123 United States v. Gravley
Manchester inmates Cory Thomas and Paul Woods testified similarly regarding information that Gravley allegedly had told them about Peterson’s murder. According to them, Gravley said “that Mr. Peterson had—had disrespected the Bloods by saying, ‘F the Bloods’ or whatever.” (PageID # 2105 (Thomas); accord 2163-64 (Woods) (“Well, it started off when [Gravley] had informed me that Peterson had said, ‘Fk’—excuse me. . . . Is it okay to say that? . . . He explained that Peterson had said, ‘F Bloods.’”).) In retaliation, they testified, Gravley ordered Milburne to assault Peterson: Lawyer: Did [Gravley] tell you who was also in the cell and perhaps even before Mr. Peterson came into the cell? Thomas: All he kept saying was his little brother. He said it was his little brother that was in the cell with him. ... Lawyer: Did he ever identify by name? Thomas: Milburne. ... Lawyer: Now, did you understand that to mean that Mr. Milburne was his true younger brother? Thomas: Yes. He did say that. Lawyer: Well, by true younger brother, I mean with the same parents. Thomas: Oh. No. I knew that it was his—his Blood brother, as far as his gangrelated brother. Lawyer: Can you explain a little bit more of what that means, in terms of the Blood gang and a little brother. Thomas: It is—it is like he is the big brother and Milburne’s the little brother. So, basically, he is the shot caller and if he is, you know, to pass down an order, that Milburne has to follow it. Lawyer: Did he tell you whether or not he, Mr. Gravley, gave the order or the shot call to Mr. Milburne? Thomas: Yes. Lawyer: What did he say? Thomas: He was just like he had gave the order. Because Mr. Milburne was going to get rank with the Bloods; that’s how he earned his stripes with the Bloods to become a lieutenant. - 12 - Case No. 11-6123 United States v. Gravley Lawyer: If Milburne did what? Thomas: Assaulted Peterson. … Lawyer: Where was Mr. Peterson when Mr. Gravley gave the nod? Thomas: He was sitting on top of the toilet. Lawyer: And who did Mr. Gravley give the nod to? Thomas: Milburne. Lawyer: And once he gave that nod, did he then tell you what happened? Thomas: He—they put him in a headlock and just beat him, was punching on him and stuff. Lawyer: Did Mr. Gravley— Thomas: —stomping on him. Lawyer: I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to cut you off. Thomas: And stomping on him and—and punching him and just choking him and stuff. ... Lawyer: Okay. Did Mr. Gravley mention anything about a shirt, placing it somewhere on— Thomas: To stop Mr. Milburne from—from hearing the screaming, that Mr. Mil—I mean, Mr. Peterson was screaming. Lawyer: Okay. Thomas: They placed a shirt in his mouth. Lawyer: And to stop him from? Thomas: Screaming and being heard. (PageID # 2105-11; accord 2163-66 (Woods).) Woods also testified that Gravley told him that Crawford, the third inmate, “participated in [the assault] by kicking [Peterson].”