United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-3239 MARK JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MARK R. SEVIER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:20-cv-2290 — James R. Sweeney II, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 2024 — DECIDED MAY 30, 2025 ____________________

Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and ST. EVE and LEE, Circuit Judges. LEE, Circuit Judge. An Indiana jury convicted Mark John- son of felony rape, felony criminal confinement, and misde- meanor battery. Johnson appealed, arguing that the court’s exclusion of certain DNA evidence at trial and the State’s de- struction of the victim’s blood sample before toxicology test- ing violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Indiana Court of Appeals vacated his convictions for 2 No. 21-3239 criminal confinement and battery on double jeopardy grounds but affirmed the rape conviction. Johnson then filed a petition to transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which was denied. Johnson subsequently pursued post-conviction review in state court and, after exhausting his state court remedies, he sought federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The dis- trict court denied Johnson’s habeas petition, concluding that his DNA-related claim was procedurally defaulted and the state court reasonably applied federal law when determining that the State had not acted in bad faith when discarding the blood sample. We affirm. I A. The Underlying Incident 1 A.T. visited Johnson’s home in Indianapolis to smoke ma- rijuana. When she arrived, Johnson told her that he did not have any and that someone would bring some later. The two started talking on Johnson’s couch. Johnson smoked crack co- caine and drank beer; A.T. did not. At some point, Johnson began to remove his clothes, and A.T. stood to leave. Johnson then grabbed A.T.’s arm and threw her on the couch. A.T. yelled for him to stop. Unde- terred, Johnson pulled down her pants, held her arms above her head, and forced her to have vaginal intercourse, ignoring

1 We adopt the facts set forth in the opinion of the Indiana Court of Appeals because they are presumed to be correct, and Johnson has not rebutted this presumption by clear and convincing evidence. See Hartsfield v. Dorethy, 949 F.3d 307, 309 n.1 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)); Perez-Gonzalez v. Lashbrook, 904 F.3d 557, 562 (7th Cir. 2018). No. 21-3239 3 her pleas. After some time, Johnson stopped, and A.T. pulled her clothes on and left Johnson’s house. While on the way to the hospital, A.T. saw a parked police car and reported what had happened. Testing later revealed A.T.’s DNA on Johnson’s penis and fingers and Johnson’s DNA on A.T.’s neck. DNA from three unidentified males also was recovered from A.T.’s underwear. No biological material from Johnson was recovered from A.T.’s genital area or cloth- ing. The police arrested Johnson and questioned him about A.T.’s allegations. During the interview, Johnson repeatedly asked whether A.T. would be tested for drugs. Detective Laura Smith, the interviewing officer, assured Johnson that A.T. would indeed be tested at the hospital. Detective Smith would later testify that she made the statement based on her belief that drug-testing victims of sexual assault was standard practice. But the protocols had changed, and after A.T.’s blood sample was tested for DNA, it was discarded before any tox- icology testing was done. B. Procedural