Bell v. Hepp

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition, arguing that prosecutor’s closing argument deprived him of fair trial, when prosecutor argued that acquittal on sexual assault charges would require jurors to believe that government witnesses (i.e. alleged victims of sexual assaults) were lying and stressed that there was no evidence of their motive to lie. Defendant argued that said argument improperly implied that he had burden to prove innocence, and that jurors with reasonable doubt about witnesses’ testimonies could still convict if they believed that witnesses were more credible than not. Under standards applicable to Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Supreme Court of Wisconsin could properly find that said statements by prosecutor were not improper, where said Court could reasonably conclude that prosecutor did no more than tell jury that its decision about witnesses’ credibility would, for practical purposes, decide case where, as here, defendant did not testify.