Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2003

Massaro v. United States

538 U.S. 500 | 123 S. Ct. 1690 | 155 L. Ed. 2d 714 | 2003 U.S. LEXIS 3243

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Massaro holds that federal defendants do not forfeit ineffective-assistance claims by omitting them from direct appeal; they may ordinarily raise those claims first through a §2255 collateral proceeding, where the necessary facts can be fully developed.

Background

Joseph Massaro was tried in federal district court on racketeering charges that included murder in aid of racketeering. Shortly before trial, prosecutors learned that a bullet allegedly recovered from the car containing the victim’s body might be critical evidence. They did not tell the defense until trial had begun and defense counsel had delivered an opening statement. Although the trial judge offered continuances so counsel could examine the bullet, defense counsel declined the offers. Massaro was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

On direct appeal, represented by new counsel, Massaro challenged the admission of the bullet but did not argue that trial counsel was ineffective for refusing a continuance. The Second Circuit affirmed. Massaro then moved under 28 U.S.C. §2255 to vacate his conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court held the claim procedurally defaulted because it could have been raised on direct appeal, and the Second Circuit affirmed under its Billy-Eko rule. That rule required a defendant with new appellate counsel to raise a record-based ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal or show cause and prejudice for failing to do so. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the federal courts of appeals.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a federal prisoner procedurally defaults an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal when the claim could have been raised there.

Holding

No. An ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim may be raised for the first time in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §2255, whether or not it could have been raised on direct appeal.

Reasoning

The ordinary rule is that a claim omitted on direct appeal cannot be raised later on collateral review unless the defendant establishes cause and prejudice. That procedural-default doctrine, however, is judge-made rather than statutory or constitutional. Its purposes are judicial economy and the finality of criminal judgments, and applying it to ineffective-assistance claims does not reliably advance either purpose.

Ineffective-assistance claims ordinarily depend on factual development that the trial record does not contain. Under Strickland, a defendant must establish both deficient performance and prejudice. Even when the record shows what counsel did, it often does not show why counsel acted that way, whether the decision reflected a reasonable strategy, or whether the alleged error affected the result. Claims based on omissions, conflicts of interest, or attorney-client communications are especially unlikely to be adequately developed during trial.

A §2255 proceeding in the district court is usually the better forum for resolving these questions. The district court can receive testimony from trial counsel and other witnesses, develop a record focused specifically on counsel’s performance, and assess prejudice. Often, the judge deciding the §2255 motion also presided over the trial and therefore has useful firsthand perspective on counsel’s conduct and the effect of any asserted deficiency.

The Second Circuit’s new-counsel and record-based exception would create needless inefficiency. It would pressure appellate lawyers to raise ineffective-assistance claims defensively, even when the claims are weak or the record is insufficient, lest the claims be lost. It would also require collateral courts to determine whether appellate counsel was truly new and to scrutinize the trial record solely to decide whether the claim should have been raised earlier, rather than addressing the merits directly.

The Court did not hold that ineffective-assistance claims can never be considered on direct appeal. In the unusual case where ineffectiveness is clear from the existing record, appellate counsel may reasonably raise the issue, and an appellate court may sometimes address an obvious problem on its own. But the availability of direct review does not make it mandatory, and a defendant’s failure to raise the claim on direct appeal does not bar a later appropriate §2255 motion.