Phillip Santoro v. United States

Petitioner Santoro was convicted for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 , 2312, and 2313, arising out of the interstate transportation and sale of stolen automobiles. The conviction was affirmed in Santoro v. United States, 402 F.2d 920 , cert. denied, 400 U.S. 849 , 91 S.Ct. 58 , 27 L.Ed. 2d 86 . The present appeal is from a judgment denying his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .

Petitioner urges three grounds for relief. First, he argues that extra-judicial statements of his co-defendants, introduced at trial, violated his right of confrontation. See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). This same point was raised, fully considered and rejected in petitioner’s direct appeal; we reaffirm that ruling.

Second, petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because, in light of Bruton, supra, counsel, who was retained to represent petitioner and his three co-defendants, would have had to consider conflicting interests in determining whether to put each of the codefendants on the witness stand. “In this circuit counsel may represent more than one defendant if the interests of the latter are not in conflict.…