United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-2819 GERROD R. BELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. RANDALL HEPP, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 2:18-cv-01439 — J. P. Stadtmueller, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED APRIL 25, 2023 — DECIDED JUNE 7, 2023 ____________________

Before RIPPLE, ST. EVE, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. At Gerrod Bell’s trial for sexual as- sault, 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 imply- ing that the defense had the burden to prove innocence and that jurors with a reasonable doubt about the witnesses’ 2 No. 21-2819 accounts could still convict if they “believed” the witnesses were more credible than not. The Supreme Court of Wiscon- sin 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. We affirm the judgment of the district court. If our review were de novo, the prosecutor’s comments might give us sig- nificant pause. But in this habeas corpus case, the Antiterror- ism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) limits our re- view. Under AEDPA’s deferential standard, we must con- clude 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). I BACKGROUND 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, some- time before the groping, Mr. Bell had nonconsensual inter- course with her. At trial, both sisters testified in detail about the assaults. Given the time between the alleged assaults and initial re- ports, the State did not have physical evidence implicating Mr. Bell. Because Mr. Bell did not testify, the trial focused on the sisters’ testimony. No. 21-2819 3

Mr. Bell’s trial counsel sought to undermine the sisters’ credibility. He suggested that the girls had motives to lie about the assaults. Counsel also highlighted the younger sis- ter’s admissions that she had been drunk at the party and, at her mother’s urging, initially had lied to police about her ine- briation. Counsel further emphasized that the older sister’s account had changed over time. Counsel noted that, when po- lice investigating the younger sister’s allegations asked the older sister if she too had been assaulted, she initially said nothing. Then, when she reported that Mr. Bell had touched her breasts, she told police there had been no other assaults. Approximately five months later, however, she reported the sexual intercourse. She explained that she did not immedi- ately report the assaults because she was ashamed and wanted to forget about them. The older sister also testified that her mother had asked her to lie at one of Mr. Bell’s pre- trial hearings about the younger sister’s drinking. To aid jurors in their evaluation of