reglab/statecodes huggingface dataset:
2023 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]
2023 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.
Wisconsin courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign countries' laws. The substance of foreign law remains a question of fact that must be pleaded and proved as any other fact. The meaning of a foreign country's law is an issue reserved in the first instance for the circuit court under sub. (5). On appeal, the court reviews the circuit court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Hennessy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2022 WI 2, 400 Wis. 2d 50, 968 N.W.2d 684, 19-1206.
2023 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 (1977).
2023 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.
2023 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).
2023 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 a 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.
Evidence—Self-Defense—Prior Acts of the Victim. Paulson. 1974 WLR 266.
2023 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).
Discussing use of specific instances evidence. 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, 2000 WI 91, 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.
2023 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 680 (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).
Although this section precludes admission of evidence of measures taken after an event if the evidence is used to prove negligence or culpable conduct, evidence of post-event remedial measures may be introduced in a case in which there are allegations of both negligence and strict liability. When a plaintiff asserts both strict liability and negligence and the evidence is not admissible under this section on the negligence theory but is admissible to prove strict liability, the defendant can request that the circuit court give an instruction limiting the evidence to the allegations of strict liability. D.L. v. Huebner, 110 Wis. 2d 581, 329 N.W.2d 890 (1983).
Evidence of subsequent remedial measures can be admitted under the impeachment exception when the evidence is presented to impeach specific witness testimony. Vanderventer v. Hyundai Motor America, 2022 WI App 56, 405 Wis. 2d 481, 983 N.W.2d 1, 20-1052.
2023 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 of Green Bay 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 of Milwaukee v. Packerland Packing Co., 82 Wis. 2d 225, 262 N.W.2d 109 (1978).
2023 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).
2023 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.
2023 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. Wisconsin Electric Power Co., 2001 WI App 226, 248 Wis. 2d 10, 635 N.W.2d 873, 99-2944.
2023 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 & 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits. › 904.15 - Communication in farmer assistance programs.

904.15
Communication in farmer assistance programs.
(1)
Except as provided under sub. (2), no oral or written communication made in the course of providing or receiving advice or counseling under s. 93.51 or in providing or receiving assistance under s. 93.41 or 93.52 is admissible in evidence or subject to discovery or compulsory process in any judicial or administrative proceeding.
(2)
(a)
Subsection (1) does not apply to information relating to possible criminal conduct.
(b)
Subsection (1) does not apply if the person receiving advice or counseling under s. 93.51 or assistance under s. 93.41 or 93.52 consents to admission or discovery of the communication.
(c)
A court may admit evidence otherwise barred by this section if necessary to prevent a manifest injustice.
History:  1997 a. 264.
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits. › 904.16 - Health care reports.

904.16
Health care reports.
(1)
In this section:
(a)
“Health care provider" has the meaning given in s. 146.38 (1) (b).
(b)
“Regulatory agency" means the department of safety and professional services or the division within the department of health services that conducts quality assurance activities related to health care providers.
(2)
Except as provided in sub. (3), the following may not be used as evidence in a civil or criminal action brought against a health care provider:
(a)
Reports that a regulatory agency requires a health care provider to give or disclose to that regulatory agency.
(b)
Statements of, or records of interviews with, employees of a health care provider related to the regulation of the health care provider obtained by a regulatory agency.
(3)
This section does not prohibit the use of the reports, statements, and records described in sub. (2) in any administrative proceeding conducted by a regulatory agency. This section does not apply to reports protected under s. 146.997.
History:  2011 a. 2; 2013 a. 166.
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.01 - Privileges recognized only as provided.

905.01
Privileges recognized only as provided.
Except as provided by or inherent or implicit in statute or in rules adopted by the supreme court or required by the constitution of the United States or Wisconsin, no person has a privilege to:
(1)
Refuse to be a witness; or
(2)
Refuse to disclose any matter; or
(3)
Refuse to produce any object or writing; or
(4)
Prevent another from being a witness or disclosing any matter or producing any object or writing.
History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R101 (1973).
This section precludes courts from recognizing common law privileges not contained in the statutes, or the U.S. or Wisconsin Constitutions. Privileges and confidentialities granted by statute are strictly interpreted. Davison v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 75 Wis. 2d 190, 248 N.W.2d 433 (1977).
A defendant did not have standing to complain that a physician's testimony violated the witness's physician-patient privilege under s. 905.04; the defendant was not authorized to claim the privilege on the patient's behalf. State v. Echols, 152 Wis. 2d 725, 449 N.W.2d 320 (Ct. App. 1989).
As s. 907.06 (1) prevents a court from compelling an expert to testify, it logically follows that a litigant should not be able to so compel an expert and a privilege to refuse to testify is implied. Burnett v. Alt, 224 Wis. 2d 72, 589 N.W.2d 21 (1999), 96-3356.
Under Alt, 224 Wis. 2d 72 (1999), a person asserting the privilege not to offer expert opinion testimony can be required to give that testimony only if: 1) there are compelling circumstances present; 2) there is a plan for reasonable compensation of the expert; and 3) the expert will not be required to do additional preparation for the testimony. An exact question requiring expert opinion testimony and a clear assertion of the privilege are required for a court to decide whether compelling circumstances exist. Alt does not apply to observations made by a person's treating physician relating to the care or treatment provided to the patient. Glenn v. Plante, 2004 WI 24, 269 Wis. 2d 575, 676 N.W.2d 413, 02-1426.
The “inherent or implicit" language in this section is quite narrow in scope and was included by the supreme court to preserve a particular work product privilege already recognized at the time this language was added to the statute, while leaving other privileges to be provided for more expressly in other statutory provisions. Sands v. Whitnall School District, 2008 WI 89, 312 Wis. 2d 1, 754 N.W.2d 439, 05-1026.
Closed Session, Open Book: Sifting the Sands Case. Bach. Wis. Law. Oct. 2009.
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.015 - Interpreters for persons with language difficulties, limited English proficiency, or hearing or speaking impairments.

905.015
Interpreters for persons with language difficulties, limited English proficiency, or hearing or speaking impairments.
(1)
If an interpreter for a person with a language difficulty, limited English proficiency, as defined in s. 885.38 (1) (b), or a hearing or speaking impairment interprets as an aid to a communication which is privileged by statute, rules adopted by the supreme court, or the U.S. or state constitution, the interpreter may be prevented from disclosing the communication by any person who has a right to claim the privilege. The interpreter may claim the privilege but only on behalf of the person who has the right. The authority of the interpreter to do so is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(2)
In addition to the privilege under sub. (1), a person who is licensed as an interpreter under s. 440.032 (3) may not disclose any aspect of a confidential communication facilitated by the interpreter unless one of the following conditions applies:
(a)
All parties to the confidential communication consent to the disclosure.
(b)
A court determines that the disclosure is necessary for the proper administration of justice.
History:  1979 c. 137; 1985 a. 266; 2001 a. 16; 2009 a. 360.
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.02 - Required reports privileged by statute.

905.02
Required reports privileged by statute.
A person, corporation, association, or other organization or entity, either public or private, making a return or report required by law to be made has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing the return or report, if provided by law. A public officer or agency to whom a return or report is required by law to be made has a privilege to refuse to disclose the return or report if provided by law. No privilege exists under this section in actions involving false swearing, fraudulent writing, fraud in the return or report, or other failure to comply with the law in question.
History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R109 (1973).
This section applies only to privileges specifically and unequivocally provided by law against the disclosure of specific materials. Davison v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 75 Wis. 2d 190, 248 N.W.2d 433 (1977).
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.06 - Communications to members of the clergy.

905.06
Communications to members of the clergy.
(1)
Definitions. As used in this section:
(a)
A “member of the clergy" is a minister, priest, rabbi, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed so to be by the person consulting the individual.
(b)
A communication is “confidential" if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.
(2)
General rule of privilege. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a member of the clergy in the member's professional character as a spiritual adviser.
(3)
Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person, by the person's guardian or conservator, or by the person's personal representative if the person is deceased. The member of the clergy may claim the privilege on behalf of the person. The member of the clergy's authority so to do is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(4)
Exceptions. There is no privilege under this section concerning observations or information that a member of the clergy, as defined in s. 48.981 (1) (cx), is required to report as suspected or threatened child abuse under s. 48.981 (2) (bm) or as a threat of violence in or targeted at a school under s. 175.32.
History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R135 (1973); 1991 a. 32; 2003 a. 279; 2005 a. 253; 2017 a. 143.
An out-of-court disclosure by a priest that the defendant would lead police to the victim's grave was not privileged under this section. State v. Kunkel, 137 Wis. 2d 172, 404 N.W.2d 69 (Ct. App. 1987).
Should Clergy Hold the Priest-Penitent Privilege? Mazza. 82 MLR 171 (1998).
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.065 - Honesty testing devices.

905.065
Honesty testing devices.
(1)
Definition. In this section, “honesty testing device" means a polygraph, voice stress analysis, psychological stress evaluator or any other similar test purporting to test honesty.
(2)
General rule of the privilege. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing any oral or written communications during or any results of an examination using an honesty testing device in which the person was the test subject.
(3)
Who may claim privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person, by the person's guardian or conservator or by the person's personal representative, if the person is deceased.
(4)
Exception. There is no privilege under this section if there is a valid and voluntary written agreement between the test subject and the person administering the test.
History:  1979 c. 319.
A distinction exists between an inquiry into the taking of a polygraph and an inquiry into its results. An offer to take a polygraph is relevant to an assessment of an offeror's credibility. State v. Wofford, 202 Wis. 2d 523, 551 N.W.2d 46 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-0979.
The results of polygraph examinations are inadmissible in civil cases. While an offer to take a polygraph examination may be relevant to the offeror's credibility, that a person agreed to a polygraph at the request of law enforcement has not been found admissible and could not be without proof that the person believed the results would accurately indicate whether the person was lying. Estate of Neumann v. Neumann, 2001 WI App 61, 242 Wis. 2d 205, 626 N.W.2d 821, 00-0557.
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.07 - Political vote.

905.07
Political vote.
Every person has a privilege to refuse to disclose the tenor of the person's vote at a political election conducted by secret ballot unless the vote was cast illegally.
History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R139 (1973); 1991 a. 32.
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.08 - Trade secrets.

905.08
Trade secrets.
A person has a privilege, which may be claimed by the person or the person's agent or employee, to refuse to disclose and to prevent other persons from disclosing a trade secret as defined in s. 134.90 (1) (c), owned by the person, if the allowance of the privilege will not tend to conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, the judge shall take such protective measure as the interests of the holder of the privilege and of the parties and the furtherance of justice may require.
History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R140 (1973); 1985 a. 236.
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.09 - Law enforcement records.

905.09
Law enforcement records.
The federal government or a state or a subdivision thereof has a privilege to refuse to disclose investigatory files, reports and returns for law enforcement purposes except to the extent available by law to a person other than the federal government, a state or subdivision thereof. The privilege may be claimed by an appropriate representative of the federal government, a state or a subdivision thereof.
History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R142 (1973).
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.11 - Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure.

905.11
Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure.
A person upon whom this chapter confers a privilege against disclosure of the confidential matter or communication waives the privilege if the person or his or her predecessor, while holder of the privilege, voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the matter or communication. This section does not apply if the disclosure is itself a privileged communication.
History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R150 (1973); 1987 a. 355; Sup. Ct. Order No. 93-03,179 Wis. 2d xv (1993).
Testimony of an accomplice who waived her privilege is admissible even though she had not been tried or granted immunity. State v. Wells, 51 Wis. 2d 477, 187 N.W.2d 328 (1971).
A litigant's request to see his or her file that is in the possession of current or former counsel does not waive the attorney-client and work-product privileges and does not allow other parties to the litigation discovery of those files. Borgwardt v. Redlin, 196 Wis. 2d 342, 538 N.W.2d 581 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-2701.
A lawyer's voluntary production of documents in response to opposing counsel's discovery request does not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege under this section when the lawyer does not recognize that the documents are subject to the attorney-client privilege and the documents are produced without the consent or knowledge of the client. The agency doctrine does not apply to waiver of attorney-client privilege as it relates to privileged documents. Harold Sampson Children's Trust v. Linda Gale Sampson 1979 Trust, 2004 WI 57, 271 Wis. 2d 610, 679 N.W.2d 794, 02-1515.
The controlling principle of waiver is the privilege holder's voluntary disclosure of any significant part of the matter or communication. It is clear from the terms of this section that a matter or communication can have several “significant parts." The significance of any portion of a communication is measured by the importance of its subject matter to the overall communication. State v. Schmidt, 2016 WI App 45, 370 Wis. 2d 139, 884 N.W.2d 510, 15-0457.
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.12 - Privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim privilege.

905.12
Privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim privilege.
Evidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged matter is not admissible against the holder of the privilege if the disclosure was (a) compelled erroneously or (b) made without opportunity to claim the privilege.
History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R151 (1973).
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.13 - Comment upon or inference from claim of privilege; instruction.

905.13
Comment upon or inference from claim of privilege; instruction.
(1)
Comment or inference not permitted. The claim of a privilege, whether in the present proceeding or upon a prior occasion, is not a proper subject of comment by judge or counsel. No inference may be drawn therefrom.
(2)
Claiming privilege without knowledge of jury. In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to facilitate the making of claims of privilege without the knowledge of the jury.
(3)
Jury instruction. Upon request, any party against whom the jury might draw an adverse inference from a claim of privilege is entitled to an instruction that no inference may be drawn therefrom.
(4)
Application; self-incrimination. Subsections (1) to (3) do not apply in a civil case with respect to the privilege against self-incrimination.
History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R153 (1973); 1981 c. 390.
The prohibition against allowing comments on or drawing an inference from a third-party witness's refusal to testify on 5th amendment grounds does not deny a criminal defendant's constitutional right to equal protection. State v. Heft, 185 Wis. 2d 289, 517 N.W.2d 494 (1994).
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.14 - Privilege in crime victim compensation proceedings.

905.14
Privilege in crime victim compensation proceedings.
(1)
Except as provided in sub. (2), no privilege under this chapter exists regarding communications or records relevant to an issue of the physical, mental or emotional condition of the claimant or victim in a proceeding under ch. 949 in which that condition is an element.
(2)
The lawyer-client privilege applies in a proceeding under ch. 949.
History:  1979 c. 189.
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.15 - Privilege in use of federal tax return information.

905.15
Privilege in use of federal tax return information.
(1)
An employee of the department of health services, the department of children and families or a county department under s. 46.215, 46.22 or 46.23 or a member of a governing body of a federally recognized American Indian tribe who is authorized by federal law to have access to or awareness of the federal tax return information of another in the performance of duties under s. 49.19 or 49.45 or 7 USC 2011 to 2049 may claim privilege to refuse to disclose the information and the source or method by which he or she received or otherwise became aware of the information.
(2)
An employee or member specified in sub. (1) may not waive the right to privilege under sub. (1) or disclose federal tax return information or the source of that information except as provided by federal law.
History:  1989 a. 31; 1995 a. 27 ss. 7225, 9126 (19), 9130 (4); 1997 a. 3; 2007 a. 20 s. 3779, 9121 (6) (a).
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges. › 905.16 - Communications to veteran mentors.

905.16
Communications to veteran mentors.
(1)
Definitions. As used in this section:
(a)
A communication is “confidential" if not intended to be disclosed to 3rd parties other than to those persons present to further the interests of the veteran or member or to persons reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication.
(b)
A “veteran mentor" is an individual who meets all of the following criteria:
1.
Served on active duty in the U.S. armed forces or in forces incorporated in the U.S. armed forces, served in a reserve unit of the U.S. armed forces, or served in the national guard.
2.
Has successfully completed a judicially approved veterans mentoring training program.
3.
Has completed a background information form approved by a circuit court judge from a county that is participating in a veterans mentoring program.
4.
Is on the list of persons authorized by a circuit court judge to provide assistance and advice in a veterans mentoring program.
(c)
“Veteran or member" means an individual who is serving or has served on active duty in the U.S. armed forces or in forces incorporated in the U.S. armed forces, in a reserve unit of the U.S. armed forces, or in the national guard.
(d)
“Veterans mentoring program" is a program approved by a circuit court judge to provide assistance and advice to a veteran or member.
(2)
General rule of privilege. A veteran or member has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication made by the veteran or member to a veteran mentor while the veteran mentor is acting within the scope of his or her duties under the veterans mentoring program.
(3)
Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the veteran or member, by the veteran's or member's guardian or conservator, or by the veteran's or member's personal representative if the veteran or member is deceased. The veteran mentor may claim the privilege on behalf of the veteran or member. The veteran mentor's authority to claim the privilege on behalf of the person is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(4)
Exception. There is no privilege under this section as to the following:
(a)
A communication that indicates that the veteran or member plans or threatens to commit a crime or to seriously harm himself or herself.
(b)
A communication that the veteran or member has agreed in writing to allow to be disclosed as a condition of his or her participation in the veterans mentoring program.
History:  2009 a. 210.
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses. › 906.01 - General rule of competency.

906.01
General rule of competency.
Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules.
History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R157 (1973); Sup. Ct. Order No. 16-01, 2017 WI 13, 373 Wis. 2d xiii.
The “best evidence rule" requires production of a writing to prove its contents. There is no comparable “better evidence rule" that requires the production of an item rather than testimony about the item. York v. State, 45 Wis. 2d 550, 173 N.W.2d 693 (1970).
The trial court may not declare a witness incompetent to testify, except as provided in this section. A witness's credibility is determined by the fact finder. State v. Hanson, 149 Wis. 2d 474, 439 N.W.2d 133 (Ct. App. 1989).
2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses. › 906.02 - Lack of personal knowledge.

906.02
Lack of personal knowledge.
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony of the witness. This rule is subject to the provisions of s. 907.03 relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R160 (1973); 1991 a. 32.
The chain of custody to items taken from the defendant's motel room was properly established although a police department laboratory chemist who examined the same was not present to testify when uncontroverted proof showed that the condition of the exhibits had not been altered by the chemist's examination, there was no unexplained or missing link as to who had had custody, and the items were in substantially the same condition at the time of the chemist's examination as when taken from defendant's room. State v. McCarty, 47 Wis. 2d 781, 177 N.W.2d 819 (1970).
A challenge to the admissibility of boots on the ground that the victim did not properly identify them was devoid of merit, as it was stipulated that the child said they “could be" the ones the child saw. The child's lack of certitude did not preclude admissibility, but went to the weight the jury should give to the testimony. Howland v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 162, 186 N.W.2d 319 (1971).