Massaro v. United States

Massaro (defendant) was indicted on federal racketeering charges including murder, and prosecutors disclosed a key bullet-evidence discovery only after trial had begun and the defense had made its opening statement; even after learning of it, defense counsel refused the trial court's offer of a continuance to examine the bullet. Massaro was convicted and, represented by new counsel on direct appeal, challenged only the bullet evidence's admission, not his trial counsel's effectiveness; the Second Circuit affirmed. Massaro then moved under 28 U.S.C. section 2255 to vacate his conviction for ineffective assistance based on counsel's refusal of the continuance, but the district court found the claim procedurally defaulted because it could have been raised on direct appeal, and the Second Circuit affirmed that a claim of ineffective assistance based solely on the trial record must be raised on direct appeal or be defaulted absent cause and prejudice.