This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Government argues that procedural‑default rules encourage raising ineffective‑assistance claims on direct appeal.
The Government also maintains that there is no need for a national uniform rule on how ineffective‑assistance claims are reviewed.
The Court notes that the question before it is a purely federal question.
Background and question before the Court
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked what source of law the Court should rely on—its supervisory powers or another source.
According to Chief Justice, chief Justice also inquired how evidence would be developed in a collateral proceeding, specifically whether trial counsel could be cross‑examined.
Justice Souter asked whether a particular procedural feature is common in these cases.
According to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), an unspecified Justice asked about the potential cost to the system of adopting one approach or another.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Joseph Massaro)
According to Herald P. Fahringer, petitioner urges that ineffective‑assistance claims be resolved in a collateral proceeding without first resorting to direct appeal.
Petitioner contends that the prejudice issue was decided on procedural grounds, not on the merits, and that neither the district court nor the court of appeals decided prejudice.
Respondent (United States)
According to Srikanth Srinivasan, respondent argues that ineffective‑assistance claims are better resolved on collateral review.
According to Government, respondent states there is no need for a national uniform rule on this issue.
What happened at oral argument
According to Herald P. Fahringer, petitioner counsel Fahringer urged that ineffective‑assistance claims be heard in a collateral proceeding without first appealing directly.
Government counsel warned that procedural‑default rules tend to encourage raising ineffective‑assistance claims on direct appeal.
Government counsel also argued that the Court need not impose a national uniform rule on the issue.
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked what source of law the Court should rely on for its decision.
Chief Justice asked how evidence would be developed in a collateral proceeding, including cross‑examining trial counsel.
Justice Souter asked whether a particular procedural feature is common in these cases.
According to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), an unspecified Justice asked about the potential cost to the system of adopting one approach versus another.
- [1] 72e4d9d44dda41fca3e8-r1-d214bb551ff5713d.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 72e4d9d44dda41fca3e8-r1-d214bb551ff5713d.pdf, p. 21
- [3] 72e4d9d44dda41fca3e8-r1-d214bb551ff5713d.pdf, p. 23
- [4] 72e4d9d44dda41fca3e8-r1-d214bb551ff5713d.pdf, p. 3
- [5] 72e4d9d44dda41fca3e8-r1-d214bb551ff5713d.pdf, p. 36
- [6] 72e4d9d44dda41fca3e8-r1-d214bb551ff5713d.pdf, p. 37
- [7] 72e4d9d44dda41fca3e8-r1-d214bb551ff5713d.pdf, p. 19
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 72e4d9d44dda41fca3e8-r1-d214bb551ff5713d.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.