reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
WI Stat § 901.09 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 901 - Evidence — general provisions.|901.09 - Submission of writings; languages other than English.

901.09  Submission of writings; languages other than English. (1) The court may require that a writing in a language other than English offered in evidence be accompanied by a written translation of the writing into English with an attached affidavit by the translator stating his or her qualifications to perform the translation and certifying that the translation is true and correct. (2) A party may object to all or parts of a translation offered under sub. (1) or to the qualifications of the translator. The court may order a party objecting to all or part of a translation to submit an alternate translation of those parts of the original translation to which the party objects, accompanied by a translator's affidavit as described in sub. (1). If an objection is made to the qualifications of the translator and the court finds that the translator is not qualified the court may reject the offered translation on that ground alone without requiring an alternative translation by the objecting party. (3) The court may require a party offering into evidence a translation under sub. (1) or an alternative translation ordered by the court under sub. (2) to bear the cost of the translation.History:  Sup. Ct. Order No. 09-03, 2010 WI 100, filed 7-27-10, eff. 1-1-11.NOTE:  Sup. Ct. Order No. 09-03 states that “the Comment to 901.09 of the statutes is not adopted, but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying 901.09 of the statutes."Comment, 2010: This rule is not intended to apply strictly to evidence in documentary form. Parties often offer evidence not contained in documents that consists of or contains statements made in a foreign language, for example, recordings of telephone calls to 911 operators, recordings of police interrogations, and surveillance recordings. The better practice when offering such evidence is for a party to offer a written transcript of the recording, to aid the jury or the court in understanding the recording. Sometimes the transcript is received as evidence, but not always, and in any event the recording is considered primary and the transcript merely an aid. If a party offers in evidence a recording accompanied by a transcript, this rule governs the transcript.This rule does not require the court to provide the party with an interpreter for purposes of preparing the translation required by this rule. [Re Order effective January 1, 2011]
WI Stat § 902.02 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 902 - Evidence — judicial notice.|902.02 - Uniform judicial notice of foreign law act.

902.02  Uniform judicial notice of foreign law act. (1) Courts take notice. Every court of this state shall take judicial notice of the common law and statutes of every state, territory and other jurisdiction of the United States. (2)  Information of the court. The court may inform itself of such laws in such manner as it may deem proper, and the court may call upon counsel to aid it in obtaining such information. (3)  Determined by court; ruling reviewable. The determination of such laws shall be made by the court and not by the jury, and shall be reviewable. (4)  Evidence of foreign law. Any party may also present to the trial court any admissible evidence of such laws, but, to enable a party to offer evidence of the law in another jurisdiction or to ask that judicial notice be taken thereof, reasonable notice shall be given to the adverse parties either in the pleadings or otherwise. (5)  Foreign country. The law of a jurisdiction other than those referred to in sub. (1) shall be an issue for the court, but shall not be subject to the foregoing provisions concerning judicial notice. (6)  Interpretation. This section shall be so interpreted as to make uniform the law of those states which enact it. (7)  Short title. This section may be cited as the Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R38 (1973); 1979 c. 89.
WI Stat § 902.03 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 902 - Evidence — judicial notice.|902.03 - County and municipal ordinances; administrative rules of state and federal agencies.

902.03  County and municipal ordinances; administrative rules of state and federal agencies. (1) The courts of this state, including the court of appeals and the supreme court, shall take judicial notice of:(a) County and municipal ordinances in those counties in which the particular court has jurisdiction; and(b) All rules of state agencies which have been published in the Wisconsin administrative code or register and all orders of such agencies. (2) The courts of this state, including the court of appeals and the supreme court, may take judicial notice, if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information, of all rules and orders of federal agencies.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R40 (1973); 1977 c. 187; 1993 a. 246.The failure of counsel to obey a court order to produce a certified copy of a county ordinance was not reversible error. Krauza v. Mauritz, 78 Wis. 2d 276, 254 N.W.2d 251.
WI Stat § 903.01 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 903 - Evidence — presumptions.|903.01 - Presumptions in general.

903.01  Presumptions in general. Except as provided by statute, a presumption recognized at common law or created by statute, including statutory provisions that certain basic facts are prima facie evidence of other facts, imposes on the party relying on the presumption the burden of proving the basic facts, but once the basic facts are found to exist the presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R41 (1973).This section does not apply to the presumption in favor of traveling employees under s. 102.03 (1) (f). Goranson v. DILHR, 94 Wis. 2d 537, 289 N.W.2d 270 (1980).Conflicting presumptions should rarely present a problem. Under this section it is impossible for opposing parties to both have the burden of persuasion on the same issue. Should inconsistent presumptions be established in a case, the weight of the evidence establishing the facts upon which the presumptions are premised is for the trier of fact and not the judge with respect to the law. Marine Bank v. Taz's Trucking Incorporated, 2005 WI 65, 281 Wis. 2d 275, 697 N.W.2d 90, 03-2827.
WI Stat § 904.02 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits.|904.02 - Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible.

904.02  Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible. All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the constitutions of the United States and the state of Wisconsin, by statute, by these rules, or by other rules adopted by the supreme court. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R70 (1973).A defendant does not have a constitutional right to present irrelevant evidence. State v. Robinson, 146 Wis. 2d 315, 431 N.W.2d 165 (1988).
WI Stat § 904.05 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits.|904.05 - Methods of proving character.

904.05  Methods of proving character. (1) Reputation or opinion. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. (2)  Specific instances of conduct. In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of the person's conduct.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R80 (1973); 1991 a. 32.A detective's opinion of a drug addict's reputation for truth and veracity did not qualify to prove reputation in the community because it was based on 12 varying opinions of persons who knew the addict, from which a community reputation could not be ascertained. Edwards v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 105, 181 N.W.2d 383 (1970).When a defendant's character evidence is by expert opinion and the prosecution's attack on the basis of the opinion is answered evasively or equivocally, then the trial court may allow the prosecution to present evidence of specific incidents of conduct. King v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 26, 248 N.W.2d 458 (1977).In order for specific acts of violence to be admissible, “character or a trait of character of a person" must be “an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense." In a homicide case in which a claim of self-defense is raised, character evidence may be admissible as evidence of the defendant's state of mind so long as the defendant had knowledge of the prior acts at the time of the offense. State v. Jackson, 2014 WI 4, 352 Wis. 2d 249, 841 N.W.2d 791, 11-2698.Self-defense — prior acts of the victim. 1974 WLR 266.
WI Stat § 904.06 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits.|904.06 - Habit; routine practice.

904.06  Habit; routine practice. (1) Admissibility. Except as provided in s. 972.11 (2), evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. (2)  Method of proof. Habit or routine practice may be proved by testimony in the form of an opinion or by specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R83 (1973); 1975 c. 184.Although a specific instance of conduct occurs only once, the evidence may be admissible under sub. (2). French v. Sorano, 74 Wis. 2d 460, 247 N.W.2d 182 (1976).Use of specific instances evidence is discussed. State v. Evans, 187 Wis. 2d 66, 522 N.W.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1994).Habit evidence must be distinguished from character evidence. Character is a generalized description of a person's disposition or of the disposition in respect to a general trait. Habit is more specific denoting one's regular response to a repeated situation. However, habit need not be “semi-automatic" or “virtually unconscious." Steinberg v. Arcilla, 194 Wis. 2d 759, 535 N.W.2d 444 (Ct. App. 1995).The greater latitude given under Davidson for allowing other acts evidence in child sexual assault cases because of the difficulty sexually abused children experience in testifying, and the difficulty prosecutors have in obtaining admissible evidence in such cases was properly applied when the victim, although an adult, functioned at the level of an 18-month-old, having an inability to recount what happened. This greater latitude is not restricted to allowing evidence of prior sexual assaults and was properly applied to allow evidence of pornography viewed by the defendant that helped to demonstrate motive. State v. Normington, 2008 WI App 8, 306 Wis. 2d 727, 744 N.W.2d 867, 07-0382.
WI Stat § 904.07 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits.|904.07 - Subsequent remedial measures.

904.07  Subsequent remedial measures. When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This section does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment or proving a violation of s. 101.11.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R87 (1973).Evidence of subsequent remedial measures by the mass producer of a defective product is admissible in a products liability case if the underlying policy of this section not to discourage corrective steps is not applicable. Chart v. General Motors Corp., 80 Wis. 2d 91, 258 N.W.2d 681 (1977).Evidence of a remedial change was inadmissible when the defendant did not challenge the feasibility of the change. Krueger v. Tappan Co., 104 Wis. 2d 199, 311 N.W.2d 219 (Ct. App. 1981).Evidence of post-event remedial measures may be introduced under both negligence and strict liability theories. D.L. v. Huebner, 110 Wis. 2d 581, 329 N.W.2d 890 (1983).
WI Stat § 904.08 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits.|904.08 - Compromise and offers to compromise.

904.08  Compromise and offers to compromise. Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This section does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, proving accord and satisfaction, novation or release, or proving an effort to compromise or obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R90 (1973); 1987 a. 355; Sup. Ct. Order No. 93-03, 179 Wis. 2d xv (1993); 1993 a. 490.While this section does not exclude evidence of compromise settlements to prove bias or prejudice of witnesses, it does exclude evidence of details such as the amount of the settlement. Johnson v. Heintz, 73 Wis. 2d 286, 243 N.W.2d 815 (1976).The plaintiff's letter suggesting a compromise between codefendants was not admissible to prove the liability of a defendant. Production Credit Ass'n v. Rosner, 78 Wis. 2d 543, 255 N.W.2d 79 (1977).When a letter from a bank to the defendant was an unconditional demand for possession of collateral and payment under a lease and was prepared without prior negotiations, compromise, or agreement, the letter was not barred by this section. Heritage Bank v. Packerland Packing Co., 82 Wis. 2d 225, 262 N.W.2d 109 (1978).
WI Stat § 904.09 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits.|904.09 - Payment of medical and similar expenses.

904.09  Payment of medical and similar expenses. Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R93 (1973).
WI Stat § 904.10 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits.|904.10 - Offer to plead guilty; no contest; withdrawn plea of guilty.

904.10  Offer to plead guilty; no contest; withdrawn plea of guilty. Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn, or a plea of no contest, or of an offer to the court or prosecuting attorney to plead guilty or no contest to the crime charged or any other crime, or in civil forfeiture actions, is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer or one liable for the person's conduct. Evidence of statements made in court or to the prosecuting attorney in connection with any of the foregoing pleas or offers is not admissible.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R94 (1973); 1991 a. 32.When an accused entered into a plea agreement and subsequently testified at the trials of other defendants, and when the accused later withdrew the guilty plea and was tried, prior trial testimony was properly admitted for impeachment purposes. State v. Nash, 123 Wis. 2d 154, 366 N.W.2d 146 (Ct. App. 1985).Statements made during a guilty plea hearing are inadmissible for any purpose, including impeachment, at a subsequent trial. State v. Mason, 132 Wis. 2d 427, 393 N.W.2d 102 (Ct. App. 1986).A defendant's agreement to sign a written confession, after being told by the district attorney that the state would stand silent regarding sentencing if the defendant gave a truthful statement, was not the result of plea negotiations but negotiations for a confession, and therefore was not inadmissible under this section. State v. Nicholson, 187 Wis. 2d 688, 523 N.W.2d 573 (Ct. App. 1994).This section does not apply to offers of compromise made to the police. State v. Pischke, 198 Wis. 2d 257, 542 N.W.2d 202 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-0183.A no contest plea in a criminal case cannot be used collaterally as an admission in future civil litigation. Kustelski v. Taylor, 2003 WI App 194, 266 Wis. 2d 940, 669 N.W.2d 780, 02-2786.Section 908.01 (4) (b) deals with admissions by a party as a general rule, but admissions incidental to an offer to plead are a special kind of party admission: they are impossible to segregate from the offer itself because the offer is implicit in the reasons advanced therefor. This section trumps s. 908.01 (4) (b) because it excludes only this particular category of party admissions and therefore is more specialized than the latter statute. State v. Norwood, 2005 WI App 218, 287 Wis. 2d 679, 706 N.W.2d 683, 04-1073.This section prohibits the use of incriminating testimony a defendant gave in order to keep the possibility of a plea bargain open. The state's assertion that this section does not apply when, as here, a prosecutor offers to allow the defendant to plead guilty, failed. Not only does this ignore the basic principle that a defendant can plead guilty with or without the prosecutor's consent, but it would require adding the words “to allow" to the statute. State v. Myrick, 2014 WI 55, 354 Wis. 2d 828, 848 N.W.2d 743, 12-2513.
WI Stat § 904.11 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits.|904.11 - Liability insurance.

904.11  Liability insurance. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This section does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R97 (1973); 1991 a. 32.This section excludes evidence of insurance to pay punitive damages. City of West Allis v. WEPCO, 2001 WI App 226, 248 Wis. 2d 10, 635 N.W.2d 873, 99-2944.
WI Stat § 904.12 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits.|904.12 - Statement of injured; admissibility; copies.

904.12  Statement of injured; admissibility; copies. (1) In actions for damages caused by personal injury, no statement made or writing signed by the injured person within 72 hours of the time the injury happened or accident occurred, shall be received in evidence unless such evidence would be admissible as a present sense impression, excited utterance or a statement of then existing mental, emotional or physical condition as described in s. 908.03 (1), (2) or (3). (2) Every person who takes a written statement from any injured person or person sustaining damage with respect to any accident or with respect to any injury to person or property, shall, at the time of taking such statement, furnish to the person making such statement, a true, correct and complete copy thereof. Any person taking or having possession of any written statement or a copy of said statement, by any injured person, or by any person claiming damage to property with respect to any accident or with respect to any injury to person or property, shall, at the request of the person who made such statement or the person's personal representative, furnish the person who made such statement or the person's personal representative, a true, honest and complete copy thereof within 20 days after written demand. No written statement by any injured person or any person sustaining damage to property shall be admissible in evidence or otherwise used or referred to in any way or manner whatsoever in any civil action relating to the subject matter thereof, if it is made to appear that a person having possession of such statement refused, upon the request of the person who made the statement or the person's personal representatives, to furnish such true, correct and complete copy thereof as herein required. (3) This section does not apply to any statement taken by any officer having the power to make arrests.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R99 (1973); 1991 a. 32.The rule on the admissibility of statements made or writings signed by an injured party within 72 hours of an accident under sub. (1) does not to apply to releases. The supreme court's interpretation of the predecessor statute to sub. (1) in Buckland, 160 Wis. 484 (1915), that the legislature did not intend the prohibition on such writings to apply to a release of claims is controlling. Hart v. Artisan and Truckers Casualty Co., 2017 WI App 45, 377 Wis. 2d 177, 900 N.W.2d 610, 16-1196.Postaccident Statements by Injured Parties. La Fave. Wis. Law. Sept. 1997.
WI Stat § 904.13 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits.|904.13 - Information concerning crime victims.

904.13  Information concerning crime victims. (1) In this section:(a) “Crime" has the meaning described in s. 950.02 (1m).(b) “Family member" has the meaning described in s. 950.02 (3).(c) “Victim" has the meaning described in s. 950.02 (4). (2) In any action or proceeding under ch. 938 or chs. 967 to 979, evidence of the address of an alleged crime victim or any family member of an alleged crime victim or evidence of the name and address of any place of employment of an alleged crime victim or any family member of an alleged crime victim is relevant only if it meets the criteria under s. 904.01. District attorneys shall make appropriate objections if they believe that evidence of this information, which is being elicited by any party, is not relevant in the action or proceeding.History:  1985 a. 132; 1995 a. 77.
WI Stat § 904.14 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits.|904.14 - Inadmissibility of statement by health care provider of apology or condolence.

904.14  Inadmissibility of statement by health care provider of apology or condolence. (1) In this section:(a) “Health care provider" has the meaning given in s. 146.81 (1) and includes an ambulatory surgery center, an adult family home as defined in s. 50.01 (1), and a residential care apartment complex, as defined in s. 50.01 (6d), that is certified or registered by the department of health services.(b) “Relative" has the meaning given in s. 106.50 (1m) (q). (2) A statement, a gesture, or the conduct of a health care provider, or a health care provider's employee or agent, that satisfies all of the following is not admissible into evidence in any civil action, administrative hearing, disciplinary proceeding, mediation, or arbitration regarding the health care provider as evidence of liability or as an admission against interest:(a) The statement, gesture, or conduct is made or occurs before the commencement of the civil action, administrative hearing, disciplinary proceeding, mediation, or arbitration.(b) The statement, gesture, or conduct expresses apology, benevolence, compassion, condolence, fault, liability, remorse, responsibility, or sympathy to a patient or his or her relative or representative.History:  2013 a. 242.