Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06121/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06121-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melvin B. Pulliam
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PftfiD 

u~.;Lf L-:ifjH~t O,un of Appeals 

··ri'.'ntb Ci,,.,1i, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL l 8 1S90 

TENTH CIRCUIT __________ &OBERT L. HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MELVIN B. PULLIAM, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

No. 89-6121 

(D.C. No. CR 88-192-T) 

(W. Dist. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

Melvin B. Pulliam appeals his conviction on two counts of 

conspiracy in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 371; and on six counts of 

making false entries in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1006, six counts 

of embezzlement or misapplication of funds in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 657, and two counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 

u.s.c. § 1344, or of aiding and abetting in the substantive counts 

under 18 U.S.C. § 2. He was also convicted of making a material 

false statement to the grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

1623(a). We affirm. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6121 Document: 010110038707 Date Filed: 07/18/1990 Page: 1 
Pulliam first contends that he should have been granted a 

judgment of acquittal on all counts. We have reviewed the record, 

and we are persuaded that the evidence was sufficient to support 

Pulliam's convictions on all counts. With respect to count XVII, 

we agree with the district court's conclusion that Pulliam's 

testimony before the grand jury on the existence of the bonds was 

material. 

Pulliam also argues that the district court erred by 

instructing the jury that the fabrication of evidence after a 

crime has been committed may show consciousness of guilt on the 

part of a defendant. We have held that "fabrication of evidence 

of innocence is cogent evidence of guilt." Samuels v. United 

States, 397 F.2d 31, 32 (10th Cir. 1968) (citing Wilson v. United 

States, 162 U.S. 613 (1896)); see also United States v. Jones, 578 

F.2d 1332, 1338 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 913 (1978). 

Consequently, an instruction to that effect is appropriate. See, 

~, United States v. Scheibel, 870 F.2d 818, 822 (2d Cir. 1989). 

The evidence that Pulliam and his co-defendant, James Wasson, 

fabricated the alleged September 1985 agreement to purchase the 

Oklahoma Housing Finance Authority bonds clearly supported the 

instruction in this case. 

Pulliam asserts that the district court erred in instructing 

the jury that false exculpatory statements by a defendant may be 

considered as evidence of consciousness of guilt. We have upheld 

the introduction of false exculpatory statements as evidence of 

unlawful intent or consciousness of guilt. See United States v. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6121 Document: 010110038707 Date Filed: 07/18/1990 Page: 2 
r 

Zang, 703 F.2d 1186, 1191 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 

828 (1983); United States v. Ingram, 600 F.2d 260, 262 (10th Cir. 

1979); United States v. Tager, 481 F.2d 97, 100 (10th Cir. 1973). 

The record reflects there was an evidentiary basis for giving the 

instruction in this case. 

Pulliam contends the district court should not have 

instructed the jury that the required element of intent could be 

established by proof that a defendant deliberately closed his eyes 

to what otherwise would have been obvious to him, see United 

States v. Manriquez Arbizo, 833 F.2d 244, 248 (10th Cir. 1987) 

(approving instruction), because the evidence in this case did not 

support such an instruction. On the contrary, we believe the 

instruction was appropriate given evidence that Pulliam, among 

other things, failed to ask questions that a reasonable person 

with his experience would have asked when he signed documents 

purporting to show an original lending relationship between his 

loan companies and six borrowers for total loans in the amount of 

$955,000, when by his own admission no such relationship existed. 

We have considered Pulliam's other contentions and we are not 

persuaded that the district court committed reversible error. The 

judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6121 Document: 010110038707 Date Filed: 07/18/1990 Page: 3