Massaro v. United States
538 U.S. 500 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be brought in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, regardless of whether the petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal.
Facts:
- Joseph Massaro was indicted on federal racketeering charges, including the murder of Joseph Fiorito.
- The day before Massaro's trial, prosecutors learned of a bullet allegedly recovered from the car where Fiorito's body was found.
- Prosecutors waited several days, until after the trial was underway and the defense had given its opening statement, to disclose this evidence.
- During the trial, the court offered Massaro's defense counsel a continuance to allow for an examination of the bullet.
- Defense counsel declined the court's offer for a continuance on more than one occasion.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Massaro was convicted of murder in aid of racketeering in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- With new counsel, Massaro appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit but did not raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- Massaro then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the District Court, seeking to vacate his conviction on the grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to accept the court's offer of a continuance.
- The District Court found the claim was procedurally defaulted because Massaro could have raised it on his direct appeal.
- Massaro, as appellant, appealed to the Second Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the claim was procedurally barred.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal prisoner's failure to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal procedurally bar that claim from being raised in a later collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. Failure to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal does not bar the claim from being brought in a later, appropriate proceeding under § 2255. The Court reasoned that collateral review in the district court through a § 2255 motion is the preferable forum for deciding claims of ineffective assistance. This is because the trial record is often incomplete or inadequate for resolving such claims, as it is developed to address guilt or innocence, not the strategic reasons behind counsel's actions or omissions. A § 2255 proceeding allows for the necessary factual development, such as taking testimony from trial counsel, which is not possible on direct appeal. Requiring claims to be brought on direct appeal would create judicial inefficiencies and perverse incentives for appellate counsel to raise meritless claims simply to avoid procedural default.
Analysis:
This unanimous decision resolves a significant circuit split and establishes a uniform federal rule that prioritizes the full and fair litigation of ineffective assistance of counsel claims over strict procedural finality. By eliminating the procedural default rule for such claims not raised on direct appeal, the Court makes it easier for federal prisoners to have their Sixth Amendment rights vindicated. The ruling promotes judicial efficiency by channeling these fact-intensive claims to the district courts, which are best equipped to develop the necessary record, rather than forcing appellate courts to review them on an inadequate trial record.
Unlock the full brief for Massaro v. United States