United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20‐2965 ROSS R. THILL, Petitioner‐Appellant, v. REED A. RICHARDSON, Respondent‐Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 18‐cv‐1005 — James D. Peterson, Chief Judge. ____________________

ARGUED APRIL 1, 2021 — DECIDED MAY 3, 2021 ____________________

Before MANION, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. A Wisconsin jury found Ross Thill guilty of sexual contact with A.M.M., his ex‐girlfriend’s eight‐ year‐old daughter. At trial, A.M.M. testified that Thill had sex‐ ually assaulted her, and the prosecution presented forensic evidence corroborating her testimony—Thill’s semen was found on her underwear. Thill’s defense was that his jilted ex‐ girlfriend framed him by saving his semen for over a year, planting it on her daughter’s underwear, and then coaching 2 No. 20‐2965 her to make false accusations. While cross‐examining Thill and in closing arguments, the prosecutor referenced Thill’s failure to tell the police during his initial interview that he be‐ lieved his ex‐girlfriend had the means or motivation to frame him. In state postconviction proceedings, Thill argued that the prosecutor impermissibly used his silence after receiving Mi‐ randa1 warnings to impeach him—violating Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976)—and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals concluded Thill had not demonstrated prejudice. Because this conclusion was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief. I. Background A. Charges and Trial In late 2011, Thill dated A.M.M.’s biological mother, April Gray. After they broke up, A.M.M. would occasionally stay the night at Thill’s house to spend time with his two daugh‐ ters. The sexual assaults allegedly occurred during these vis‐ its. The last of these visits occurred on March 8, 2013. A.M.M. claimed that Thill sexually assaulted her in his car on the way to his house. A.M.M. underwent a sexual assault exam and a forensic interview with a social worker. Shortly afterward, the state charged Thill with one count of repeated sexual assault of A.M.M. In June 2014, a four‐day trial commenced.

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). No. 20‐2965 3

1. The State’s Case Gray testified that she and Thill had dated for a few months near the end of 2011. When they were together, she would sometimes bring A.M.M. with her to Thill’s house be‐ cause Thill had two daughters around A.M.M.’s age. Accord‐ ing to Gray, she cared more about Thill than he did about her, and so they broke up. After their breakup, A.M.M. continued to occasionally spend the night at Thill’s house. Though A.M.M. is Gray’s biological daughter, her legal guardian is Gray’s mother, Barbara Martin. Martin was out of town with her husband during the weekend of March 8, 2013, and Gray was taking care of A.M.M. She and Thill arranged for A.M.M. to spend the night at his house on Friday, March 8. Gray testified that the morning of March 8, as A.M.M. was getting ready to go to school, she told Gray that Thill had touched her inappropriately in the past. Gray told A.M.M. that if that were true, she would not be able to go back to Thill’s house. A.M.M. began to cry and said she wanted to spend time with her friends. According to Gray, she did not believe A.M.M. at the time. Gray testified that while A.M.M.