Sexual Assault

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Gerrod Bell v. Randall Hepp

Case No.: 21-2819

Officials: Ripple, St. Eve, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sexual Assault

Two sisters accused Mr. Bell, a friend of their mother, of sexually assaulting them. The younger sister said that Mr. Bell assaulted her when she was fourteen years old, at her sister’s birthday party. The older sister later said that around the date of the party, Mr. Bell groped her (the older sister’s) breasts. Months after that report, the older sister added that, sometime before the groping, Mr. Bell had nonconsensual intercourse with her. At trial, both sisters testified in detail about the assaults. Given the time between the alleged assaults and initial reports, the State did not have physical evidence implicating Mr. Bell. Because Mr. Bell did not testify, the trial focused on the sisters’ testimony

At Bell’s trial for sexual assault, a Wisconsin prosecutor argued that an acquittal would require jurors to believe that the witnesses were lying and stressed that there was no evidence of a motive to lie. After Mr. Bell was convicted, he moved for a new trial, claiming that the prosecutor’s argument made his trial unfair by implying that the defense had the burden to prove innocence and that jurors with a reasonable doubt about the witnesses’ accounts could still convict if they “believed” the witnesses were more credible than not. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin rejected Mr. Bell’s claim; it held that the comments were not improper. The district court denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The Seventh Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court. If its review were de novo, the prosecutor’s comments might give it significant pause. But in this habeas corpus case, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) limits our review. Under AEDPA’s deferential standard, the Seventh Circuit must conclude that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Affirmed.

Decided 06/07/23

Full Text