United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21‐1044 ROBERT D. LEE‐KENDRICK, Petitioner‐Appellant, v. SCOTT ECKSTEIN, Respondent‐Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 15‐CV‐1117 — Nancy Joseph, Magistrate Judge. ____________________

ARGUED MARCH 31, 2022 — DECIDED JUNE 28, 2022 ____________________

Before MANION, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Robert Lee‐ Kendrick of sexually assaulting three girls. In this appeal from a denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he chal‐ lenges those convictions, arguing his trial and postconviction counsel provided ineffective assistance. But his claim con‐ cerning failure to call an impeachment witness was denied on an adequate and independent state‐law ground, and thus is procedurally defaulted. That default is not excused by cause 2 No. 21‐1044 and prejudice. So, federal review is foreclosed, and we affirm the district court. I Robert Lee‐Kendrick, a recording artist and music pro‐ ducer, bought a mansion in the exclusive Milwaukee suburb of River Hills. Most weekends and in the summer, some of his children and many of their friends stayed at the seven‐bed‐ room, seven‐bathroom residence which featured a pool and a recording studio. Two girls reported that while they spent time at his house, Lee‐Kendrick repeatedly sexually assaulted them, and that he did so for years there and at other locations. A third girl also said he assaulted her during a 15th birthday party for one of the other victims. Lee‐Kendrick was charged in Milwaukee County Circuit Court with multiple counts of sexual assault of three girls un‐ der the age of sixteen: his biological daughter; his girlfriend’s daughter, A.W.; and a friend of A.W. Initially, he pleaded no contest to the charges, but he was later allowed to withdraw those pleas and the case went to jury trial in June 2011. Each girl testified she was sexually assaulted by Lee‐ Kendrick, which he denied. He said he provided the children with things he never had growing up, but reflected that per‐ haps he had become too lenient. The girls were getting out of control, Lee‐Kendrick said, and their accusations arose only after he started limiting activities and taking away their cell phones and allowances. There was no physical evidence link‐ ing Lee‐Kendrick to the charges, so the trial outcome turned No. 21‐1044 3 on the jury’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility.1 The jury found Lee‐Kendrick guilty of the sexual assaults, although it acquitted him of other charges. He was sentenced to 45 years of initial confinement, followed by 30 years of extended su‐ pervision. He is currently a prisoner in Wisconsin’s custody. By newly appointed postconviction counsel, Lee‐ Kendrick filed post‐trial motions, including one for a new trial. He argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective as‐ sistance by not objecting to certain prejudicial cross‐examina‐ tion. The trial court denied the motions, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, and a petition for review to the Wiscon‐ sin Supreme Court was denied. Next, Lee‐Kendrick, acting pro se, sought relief in state trial court under Wisconsin’s postconviction procedure. WIS. STAT. § 974.06. He argued his postconviction counsel pro‐ vided ineffective assistance by failing to raise his trial coun‐ sel’s ineffectiveness in numerous ways. Among these failures was a claim that trial counsel should have called as a witness