Eric Benson Skeens v. Ron Neal
Court
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
August 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Importance
48%
Case Summary
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-1910 ERIC BENSON SKEENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. RON NEAL, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. No. 3:21-cv-00692 — Damon R. Leichty, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2024 — DECIDED AUGUST 4, 2025 ____________________ Before SCUDDER, ST. EVE, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges. JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge. Eric Skeens was con- victed of five counts of child molesting in Huntington County, Indiana, and sentenced to 187 years in prison. With no physical evidence, the state’s case against Skeens relied al- most entirely on the trial testimony of the child victim, K.W. During closing arguments, Skeens’s attorney told the jury, “I believe her,” referring to K.W. This statement led Skeens to 2 No. 22-1910 include a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his post- conviction petition for relief. The Indiana Court of Appeals found Skeens suffered no harm from his attorney’s statement because K.W.’s compel- ling testimony, not his attorney’s ambiguous and isolated statement, prompted the guilty verdicts. Skeens challenged this decision in a federal habeas petition that the district court denied. We too must deny relief because Skeens has not demonstrated that the Indiana Court of Appeals made any unreasonable determination of fact or law when deciding that Skeens suffered no prejudice from his attorney’s imprudent remark. I Except where noted, Skeens has not challenged the state court’s factual findings, so it is appropriate for us to defer to those findings. Goodloe v. Brannon, 4 F.4th 445, 447 (7th Cir. 2021). We reproduce a portion of them below. Skeens’s trial took place in July 2009. At trial, K.W.’s mother testified that she married Skeens when K.W. was about four years old. The three lived together on Williams Street until K.W. and her mother—by then divorced from Skeens—moved to a new home when K.W. was eight years old. But even after K.W. and her mother moved away, Skeens continued to supervise the child while her mother was at work, spending an average of three nights a week with K.W. As summarized by the state intermediate court on direct appeal, K.W.’s testimony at trial established the following: During the period of time between September 2007, when Skeens, Mother, and K.W. moved to Williams Street, and November 2008, Skeens No. 22-1910 3 subjected K.W. to a variety of sexual encounters. Mother would be “either at the grocery store, some type of store or [] she was at work.” Skeens removed both his and K.W.’s clothing and placed her on top of a bathroom sink, and he had sexual intercourse with K.W. which “hurt” K.W. Skeens placed a towel underneath K.W. “to wipe up white stuff that came out” of her vagina. Afterwards, Skeens would ask K.W. to go to the bathroom, and her vagina “kind of burned.” Also, Skeens would remove his and K.W.’s clothing in either the living room, Mother’s bed- room, or the bathroom and “put his tongue” on K.W.’s vagina. When in either the living room or bedroom, Skeens would remove both his and K.W.’s clothing, and K.W. would be “laying down” on her back and Skeens was “[l]ike un- der [her] .... like under [her] legs sort of,” which were “separated.” Skeens would use his tongue to “lick []” K.W.’s vagina which felt “[w]et” and “[w]eird” to K.W. When Skeens would put his tongue on K.W.’s vagina in the bathroom, K.W. would be “in the same position” on top of the sink as when Skeens had sexual intercourse with her. Skeens would be “kind of squatting.” Further, Skeens would touch K.W.’s vagina with his fingers in the living room, the bath- room, and the bedroom. Skeens would remove his and K.W.’s clothes and “rub” her vagina “in circles” using one finger on each hand. Skeens 4 No. 22-1910 would also rub “the part of [K.W.’s vagina] where [she goes] potty” using one finger “on both hands and then sometimes two fingers.” Skeens would also make K.W. put his penis in her mouth in the living room and the bedroom. Skeens would remove his and K.W.’s clothes, and K.W. would lay on the floor on her back and Skeens would be “laying on top of [her] with his hands like sort
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
August 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-1910 ERIC BENSON SKEENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v.
RON NEAL, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.
No. 3:21-cv-00692 — Damon R. Leichty, Judge.
____________________
ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2024 — DECIDED AUGUST 4, 2025 ____________________
Before SCUDDER, ST. EVE, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges. JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge. Eric Skeens was con- victed of five counts of child molesting in Huntington County, Indiana, and sentenced to 187 years in prison. With no physical evidence, the state’s case against Skeens relied al- most entirely on the trial testimony of the child victim, K.W. During closing arguments, Skeens’s attorney told the jury, “I believe her,” referring to K.W. This statement led Skeens to 2 No. 22-1910
include a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his post- conviction petition for relief. The Indiana Court of Appeals found Skeens suffered no harm from his attorney’s statement because K.W.’s compel- ling testimony, not his attorney’s ambiguous and isolated statement, prompted the guilty verdicts. Skeens challenged this decision in a federal habeas petition that the district court denied. We too must deny relief because Skeens has not demonstrated that the Indiana Court of Appeals made any unreasonable determination of fact or law when deciding that Skeens suffered no prejudice from his attorney’s imprudent remark. I Except where noted, Skeens has not challenged the state court’s factual findings, so it is appropriate for us to defer to those findings. Goodloe v. Brannon, 4 F.4th 445, 447 (7th Cir. 2021). We reproduce a portion of them below. Skeens’s trial took place in July 2009. At trial, K.W.’s mother testified that she married Skeens when K.W. was about four years old. The three lived together on Williams Street until K.W. and her mother—by then divorced from Skeens—moved to a new home when K.W. was eight years old. But even after K.W. and her mother moved away, Skeens continued to supervise the child while her mother was at work, spending an average of three nights a week with K.W. As summarized by the state intermediate court on direct appeal, K.W.’s testimony at trial established the following: During the period of time between September 2007, when Skeens, Mother, and K.W. moved to Williams Street, and November 2008, Skeens No. 22-1910 3
subjected K.W. to a variety of sexual encounters.
Mother would be “either at the grocery store,
some type of store or [] she was at work.”
Skeens removed both his and K.W.’s clothing
and placed her on top of a bathroom sink, and
he had sexual intercourse with K.W. which
“hurt” K.W. Skeens placed a towel underneath
K.W. “to wipe up white stuff that came out” of
her vagina. Afterwards, Skeens would ask K.W.
to go to the bathroom, and her vagina “kind of
burned.”
Also, Skeens would remove his and K.W.’s
clothing in either the living room, Mother’s bed-
room, or the bathroom and “put his tongue” on
K.W.’s vagina. When in either the living room
or bedroom, Skeens would remove both his and
K.W.’s clothing, and K.W. would be “laying
down” on her back and Skeens was “[l]ike un-
der [her] .... like under [her] legs sort of,” which
were “separated.” Skeens would use his tongue
to “lick []” K.W.’s vagina which felt “[w]et” and
“[w]eird” to K.W. When Skeens would put his
tongue on K.W.’s vagina in the bathroom, K.W.
would be “in the same position” on top of the
sink as when Skeens had sexual intercourse
with her. Skeens would be “kind of squatting.”
Further, Skeens would touch K.W.’s vagina
with his fingers in the living room, the bath-
room, and the bedroom. Skeens would remove
his and K.W.’s clothes and “rub” her vagina “in
circles” using one finger on each hand. Skeens
4 No. 22-1910
would also rub “the part of [K.W.’s vagina]
where [she goes] potty” using one finger “on
both hands and then sometimes two fingers.”
Skeens would also make K.W. put his penis in
her mouth in the living room and the bedroom.
Skeens would remove his and K.W.’s clothes,
and K.W. would lay on the floor on her back and
Skeens would be “laying on top of [her] with his
hands like sort
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
August 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools