Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

GABRIEL A. PULLIAM, Defendant- Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
gabriel-a-pulliam-defendant
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Criminal Law
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving GABRIEL A. PULLIAM, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Sep 9, 2020

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. GABRIEL A. PULLIAM, Defendant-Appellant

Appellant

Gabriel Pulliam appealed his conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, arguing the trial court plainly erred by not advising him of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination before he testified. The appellate court declined to engage in plain error review. It found that Pulliam failed to meet his burden of demonstrating substantial grounds for believing that a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice resulted from the alleged error, especially since he conceded his decision to testify would not have been different. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.