Massaro v. United States

538 U.S. 500 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Joseph Massaro, (D) was indicted on federal racketeering charges, including murder in aid of racketeering. The day before D's trial was to begin, prosecutors learned of what appeared to be a critical piece of evidence: a bullet allegedly recovered from the car in which the victim's body was found. They waited for several days, however, to inform defense counsel of this development. Not until the trial was underway and the defense had made its opening statement did they make this disclosure. After the trial court and the defense had been informed of the development but still, during the course of trial, defense counsel more than once declined the trial court's offer of a continuance so the bullet could be examined. D was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. On direct appeal, new counsel for D argued the District Court had erred in admitting the bullet in evidence, but he did not raise any claim relating to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction. D filed a motion under 28 U. S. C. §2255, seeking to vacate his conviction. As relevant here, he claimed that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance in failing to accept the trial court's offer to grant a continuance. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found this claim procedurally defaulted because D could have raised it on direct appeal. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. The court acknowledged that ineffective-assistance claims usually should be excused from procedural default rules because an attorney who handles both trial and appeal is unlikely to raise an ineffective-assistance claim against himself. Nevertheless, it adhered to its decision in Billy-Eko v. United States, 8 F. 3d 111 (1993).