reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
WI Stat § 906.03 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses.|906.03 - Oath or affirmation.

906.03  Oath or affirmation. (1) Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness's conscience and impress the witness's mind with the witness's duty to do so. (2) The oath may be administered substantially in the following form: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. (3) Every person who shall declare that the person has conscientious scruples against taking the oath, or swearing in the usual form, shall make a solemn declaration or affirmation, which may be in the following form: Do you solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the testimony you shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; and this you do under the pains and penalties of perjury. (4) The assent to the oath or affirmation by the person making it may be manifested by the uplifted hand.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R161 (1973); 1991 a. 32.A witness who is a young child need not be formally sworn to meet the oath or affirmation requirement. State v. Hanson, 149 Wis. 2d 474, 439 N.W.2d 133 (1989).
WI Stat § 906.04 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses.|906.04 - Interpreters.

906.04  Interpreters. An interpreter is subject to the provisions of chs. 901 to 911 relating to qualification as an expert and the administration of an oath or affirmation that the interpreter will make a true translation.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R162 (1973); 1981 c. 390; 1991 a. 32.
WI Stat § 906.05 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses.|906.05 - Competency of judge as witness.

906.05  Competency of judge as witness. The judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness. No objection need be made in order to preserve the point.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R163 (1973).A judge who carefully considered the transcribed record and her recollection of a previous proceeding involving the defendant did not impermissibly testify. State v. Meeks, 2002 WI App 65, 251 Wis. 2d 361, 643 N.W.2d 526, 01-0263.Reversed on other grounds. 2003 WI 104, 263 Wis. 2d 794, 666 N.W.2d 859, 01-0263.
WI Stat § 906.07 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses.|906.07 - Who may impeach.

906.07  Who may impeach. The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R169 (1973); 1991 a. 32.
WI Stat § 906.10 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses.|906.10 - Religious beliefs or opinions.

906.10  Religious beliefs or opinions. Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness's credibility is impaired or enhanced.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R184 (1973); 1991 a. 32.
WI Stat § 906.12 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses.|906.12 - Writing used to refresh memory.

906.12  Writing used to refresh memory. If a witness uses a writing to refresh the witness's memory for the purpose of testifying, either before or while testifying, an adverse party is entitled to have it produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony, the judge shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objections shall be preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this rule, the judge shall make any order justice requires, except that in criminal cases when the prosecution elects not to comply, the order shall be one striking the testimony or, if the judge in the judge's discretion determines that the interests of justice so require, declaring a mistrial.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R193 (1973); 1991 a. 32.
WI Stat § 906.13 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses.|906.13 - Prior statements of witnesses.

906.13  Prior statements of witnesses. (1) Examining witness concerning prior statement. In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown or its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel upon the completion of that part of the examination. (2)  Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement of a witness. (a) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless any of the following is applicable:1. The witness was so examined while testifying as to give the witness an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement.2. The witness has not been excused from giving further testimony in the action.3. The interests of justice otherwise require.(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in s. 908.01 (4) (b).History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R197 (1973); 1991 a. 32; 1999 a. 85.A witness for the defense could be impeached by prior inconsistent statements to the district attorney even though made in the course of plea bargaining as to a related offense. Taylor v. State, 52 Wis. 2d 453, 190 N.W.2d 208 (1971).A statement by a defendant, not admissible as part of the prosecution's case because it was taken without the presence of the defendant's counsel, may be used on cross-examination for impeachment if the statement is trustworthy. Wold v. State, 57 Wis. 2d 344, 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973).A bright line test for determining whether a defendant's prior inconsistent statement is admissible for impeachment is whether it was compelled. State v. Pickett, 150 Wis. 2d 720, 442 N.W.2d 509 (Ct. App. 1989).This section is applicable in criminal cases. A defense investigator's reports of witness interviews are statements under sub. (1) but only must be disclosed if defense counsel has examined the witness concerning the statements made to the investigator. State v. Hereford, 195 Wis. 2d 1054, 537 N.W.2d 62 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-1596.A prior inconsistent statement is admissible under sub. (2) without first confronting the witness with that statement. Under sub. (2) (a) 2. and 3. extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements is admissible if the witness has not been excused from giving further testimony in the case or if the interest of justice otherwise requires its admission. State v. Smith, 2002 WI App 118, 254 Wis. 2d 654, 648 N.W.2d 15, 01-1662.A video recording of a child's statement was inadmissible as a prior inconsistent statement under sub. (2) (a) when the requirements of s. 908.08 were not met. State v. Mercado, 2020 WI App 14, 391 Wis. 2d 304, 941 N.W.2d 835, 18-2419.
WI Stat § 906.14 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses.|906.14 - Calling and interrogation of witnesses by judge.

906.14  Calling and interrogation of witnesses by judge. (1) Calling by judge. The judge may, on the judge's own motion or at the suggestion of a party, call witnesses, and all parties are entitled to cross-examine witnesses thus called. (2)  Interrogation by judge. The judge may interrogate witnesses, whether called by the judge or by a party. (3)  Objections. Objections to the calling of witnesses by the judge or to interrogation by the judge may be made at the time or at the next available opportunity when the jury is not present.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R200 (1973); 1991 a. 32.A trial judge's elicitation of trial testimony is improper if the cumulative effect of the judge's questioning and direction of the course of the trial has a substantial prejudicial effect on the jury. Schultz v. State, 82 Wis. 2d 737, 264 N.W.2d 245 (1978).The practice of judicial interrogation is a dangerous one, but does not require that no court should be allowed to call and question a witness prior to completion of the presentation of evidence. State v. Carprue, 2004 WI 111, 274 Wis. 2d 656, 683 N.W.2d 31, 02-2781.
WI Stat § 906.15 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses.|906.15 - Exclusion of witnesses.

906.15  Exclusion of witnesses. (1) At the request of a party, the judge or a circuit court commissioner shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. The judge or circuit court commissioner may also make the order of his or her own motion. (2) Subsection (1) does not authorize exclusion of any of the following:(a) A party who is a natural person.(b) An officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney.(c) A person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party's cause.(d) A victim, as defined in s. 950.02 (4), in a criminal case or a victim, as defined in s. 938.02 (20m), in a delinquency proceeding under ch. 938, unless the judge or circuit court commissioner finds that exclusion of the victim is necessary to provide a fair trial for the defendant or a fair fact-finding hearing for the juvenile. The presence of a victim during the testimony of other witnesses may not by itself be a basis for a finding that exclusion of the victim is necessary to provide a fair trial for the defendant or a fair fact-finding hearing for the juvenile. (3) The judge or circuit court commissioner may direct that all excluded and non-excluded witnesses be kept separate until called and may prevent them from communicating with one another until they have been examined or the hearing is ended.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R202 (1973); 1991 a. 32; 1997 a. 181; 2001 a. 61.Under sub. (3), a circuit court has the authority to prevent an attorney from sharing with a nonparty witness who has yet to testify the testimony of prior witnesses during a recess, including barring a witness from reading a transcript of that testimony. State v. Copeland, 2011 WI App 28, 332 Wis. 2d 283, 798 N.W.2d 250, 08-2713.
WI Stat § 906.16 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses.|906.16 - Bias of witness.

906.16  Bias of witness. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence of bias, prejudice, or interest of the witness for or against any party to the case is admissible.History:  Sup. Ct. Order No. 16-02A, 2017 WI 92, 378 Wis. 2d xiii.NOTE:  Sup. Ct. Order No. 16-02A states that: “The Judicial Council Notes to Wis. Stats. §§ 901.07, 906.08, 906.09, and 906.16 are not adopted, but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the rule.”Judicial Council Note, 2017:  This rule is adopted from the Uniform Rules of Evidence 616, which codifies United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 105 S. Ct. 465, 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984). The rule codifies the common law in Wisconsin . See State v. Long, 2002 WI App 114, ¶18, 255 Wis. 2d 729, 647 N.W.2d 884 (“Wisconsin law is in accordance with the principle set forth in Abel."). The committee viewed codification of the rule as useful, however, to reiterate that bias, prejudice, or interest of a witness is a fact of consequence under Wis. Stat. § 904.01. Further, the rule should make it clear that bias, prejudice, or interest is not a collateral matter, and can be established by extrinsic evidence. State v. Williamson, 84 Wis. 2d 370, 383, 267 N.W.2d 337, 343 (1978) (“The bias or prejudice of a witness is not a collateral issue and extrinsic evidence may be used to prove that a witness has a motive to testify falsely. . . . The extent of the inquiry with respect to bias is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.").
WI Stat § 907.01 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 907 - Evidence — opinions and expert testimony.|907.01 - Opinion testimony by lay witnesses.

907.01  Opinion testimony by lay witnesses. If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness's testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are all of the following: (1) Rationally based on the perception of the witness. (2) Helpful to a clear understanding of the witness's testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. (3) Not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of a witness under s. 907.02 (1). History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R205 (1973); 1991 a. 32; 2011 a. 2.When a victim admitted injecting heroin about 72 hours before testifying, the trial court properly denied the defendant's request that the witness display his arm in the presence of the jury in an attempt to prove that the injection was more recent. Edwards v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 105, 181 N.W.2d 383 (1970).An attorney, not qualified as an expert, could testify regarding negotiations in which he was an actor, including expressing opinions about the transaction, but could not testify as to what a reasonably competent attorney would or should do in similar circumstances. Hennig v. Ahearn, 230 Wis. 2d 149, 601 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2319.Using Lay Opinion Evidence at Trial. Coaty. Wis. Law. May 2009.
WI Stat § 907.04 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 907 - Evidence — opinions and expert testimony.|907.04 - Opinion on ultimate issue.

907.04  Opinion on ultimate issue. Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R211 (1973).
WI Stat § 907.05 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 907 - Evidence — opinions and expert testimony.|907.05 - Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion.

907.05  Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion. The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give the reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the judge requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R213 (1973); 1991 a. 32.
WI Stat § 907.07 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 907 - Evidence — opinions and expert testimony.|907.07 - Reading of report by expert.

907.07  Reading of report by expert. An expert witness may at the trial read in evidence any report which the witness made or joined in making except matter therein which would not be admissible if offered as oral testimony by the witness. Before its use, a copy of the report shall be provided to the opponent.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R219 (1973); 1991 a. 32.
WI Stat § 908.02 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 908 - Evidence — hearsay.|908.02 - Hearsay rule.

908.02  Hearsay rule. Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules adopted by the supreme court or by statute.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R248 (1973).The rule of completeness requires that a statement, including otherwise inadmissible evidence including hearsay, be admitted in its entirety when necessary to explain an admissible portion of the statement. The rule is not restricted to writings or recorded statements. State v. Sharp, 180 Wis. 2d 640, 511 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1993).Prisoner disciplinary hearings are governed by administrative rules that permit consideration of hearsay evidence. State ex rel. Ortega v. McCaughtry, 221 Wis. 2d 376, 585 N.W.2d 640 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-2972.As long as motive and opportunity have been shown and there is also some evidence to directly connect a 3rd person to the crime charged that is not remote in time, place, or circumstances, the evidence should be admissible. State v. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, 265 Wis. 2d 278, 666 N.W.2d 881, 00-2590.A mechanistic application of the law of hearsay should not defeat a defendant's right to obtain a fair trial through the presentation of reliable hearsay evidence. Evidence that qualifies for admission under an exception to the hearsay rule, and is critical to the defense implicates constitutional rights directly affecting the ascertainment of guilt and should be admitted under Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. at 302. State v. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, 265 Wis. 2d 278, 666 N.W.2d 881, 00-2590.Computer-stored records, which memorialize the assertions of human declarants, are distinct from computer-generated records, which are the result of a process free of human intervention. The hearsay rule is designed to protect against the four testimonial infirmities of ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, and erroneous memory. A record created as a result of a computerized or mechanical process cannot lie, forget, or misunderstand and is not hearsay. Because such a report is not hearsay, it was subject only to the statutory authentication requirements, and was properly authenticated under s. 909.01 through the testimony of experienced operators. State v. Kandutsch, 2011 WI 78, 336 Wis. 2d 478, 799 N.W.2d 865, 09-1351.
WI Stat § 908.04 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 908 - Evidence — hearsay.|908.04 - Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable; definition of unavailability.

908.04  Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable; definition of unavailability. (1) “Unavailability as a witness" includes situations in which the declarant:(a) Is exempted by ruling of the judge on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or(b) Persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement despite an order of the judge to do so; or(c) Testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or(d) Is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or(e) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of the declarant's statement has been unable to procure the declarant's attendance by process or other reasonable means. (2) A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if the declarant's exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of the declarant's statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R302 (1973); 1991 a. 32.Adequate medical evidence of probable psychological trauma is required to support an unavailability finding based on trauma, absent an emotional breakdown on the witness stand. State v. Sorenson, 152 Wis. 2d 471, 449 N.W.2d 280 (Ct. App. 1989).The state must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the declarant's absence is due to the defendant's misconduct under sub. (2). State v. Frambs, 157 Wis. 2d 700, 460 N.W.2d 811 (Ct. App. 1990).When testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation. “Testimonial statements" applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial and to police interrogations. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004).A finding of unavailability of a witness due to mental illness, made on the basis of a confused and stale record, deprived the defendant of the right to confront witnesses, but the error was harmless. Burns v. Clusen, 599 F. Supp. 1438 (1984).Hearsay and the Confrontation Clause. Biskupic. Wis. Law. May 2004.
WI Stat § 908.05 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 908 - Evidence — hearsay.|908.05 - Hearsay within hearsay.

908.05  Hearsay within hearsay. Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in this chapter.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R323 (1973).The admission of double hearsay did not violate the defendant's right to confront witnesses. State v. Lenarchick, 74 Wis. 2d 425, 247 N.W.2d 80 (1976).Evidence of 911 calls, including tapes and transcripts of the calls, is not inadmissible hearsay. Admission does not violate the right to confront witnesses. State v. Ballos, 230 Wis. 2d 495, 602 N.W.2d 117 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1905.Before entertaining the question of whether proffered evidence is hearsay or falls under a hearsay exception, courts must engage in an analysis of whether the evidence is relevant. In this case, because testimony as to the victim's character and personal history was not relevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence, testimony on those issues was not admissible regardless of the applicability of any hearsay exceptions. State v. Jacobs, 2012 WI App 104, 344 Wis. 2d 142, 822 N.W.2d 885, 11-1852.
WI Stat § 908.06 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 908 - Evidence — hearsay.|908.06 - Attacking and supporting credibility of declarant.

908.06  Attacking and supporting credibility of declarant. When a hearsay statement has been admitted in evidence, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked, and if attacked may be supported by any evidence which would be admissible for those purposes if declarant had testified as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant at any time, inconsistent with the declarant's hearsay statement, is not subject to any requirement that the declarant may have been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. If the party against whom a hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party is entitled to examine the declarant on the statement as if under cross-examination.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R325 (1973); 1991 a. 32.
WI Stat § 909.03 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 909 - Evidence — authentication and identification.|909.03 - Subscribing witness' testimony unnecessary.

909.03  Subscribing witness' testimony unnecessary. The testimony of a subscribing witness is not necessary to authenticate a writing unless required by the laws of the jurisdiction whose laws govern the validity of the writing.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R349 (1973).