## Facts

- Joseph Massaro was indicted on federal racketeering charges, including murder in aid of racketeering, arising from the shooting death of Joseph Fiorito.
- During trial, the prosecution introduced a bullet allegedly recovered from the car where the victim’s body was found; the government disclosed this evidence after trial began.
- The trial court offered defense counsel a continuance to allow examination of the bullet, but counsel declined more than once.
- Massaro was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- On direct appeal, represented by new counsel, Massaro challenged admission of the bullet but did not assert ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- After his conviction was affirmed, Massaro moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction, claiming trial counsel was ineffective for refusing the continuance that would have permitted examination of the bullet.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is procedurally defaulted when new appellate counsel fails to raise it on direct appeal, even if the claim is based solely on the trial record.
2. Whether ineffective-assistance claims may be brought for the first time in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 regardless of their apparent availability on direct appeal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim may be raised in a § 2255 proceeding whether or not it could have been raised on direct appeal.
- The Court rejected the Second Circuit’s rule treating such claims as procedurally defaulted absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
- The Court reaffirmed that ineffective-assistance claims are evaluated under Strickland’s deficient-performance and prejudice requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are not barred in § 2255 proceedings by a defendant’s failure to raise them on direct appeal.
- Direct-appeal records are often inadequate to resolve ineffective-assistance claims because the Strickland analysis commonly depends on facts outside the trial record (including counsel’s strategic reasoning and off-the-record communications).
- Collateral proceedings under § 2255 in the district court are generally the preferred forum for litigating ineffective-assistance claims because they permit factual development, including evidentiary submissions and hearings.
- Forcing defendants to raise ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal can encourage premature, incomplete litigation and increase overall judicial burden rather than conserve resources or protect finality.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal defendants may bring ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for the first time in a § 2255 motion, even when new counsel represented the defendant on direct appeal and the claim could have been asserted based on the trial record, because collateral review is better suited to develop the facts required by Strickland.


Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003)