Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 807.13 (2026)
Telephone and audiovisual proceedings
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
807.13(2)(2) Evidentiary hearings. In civil actions and proceedings, including those under chs. 48, 51, 54, and 55, the court may admit oral testimony communicated to the court on the record by telephone or live audiovisual means, subject to cross-examination, when:
807.13(2)(c)2.2. Whether the proponent has been unable, after due diligence, to procure the physical presence of the witness;
807.13(2)(c)3.3. The convenience of the parties and the proposed witness, and the cost of producing the witness in relation to the importance of the offered testimony;
807.13(2)(c)4.4. Whether the procedure would allow full effective cross-examination, especially where availability to counsel of documents and exhibits available to the witness would affect such cross-examination;
807.13(2)(c)5.5. The importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses in open court, where the finder of fact may observe the demeanor of the witness, and where the solemnity of the surroundings will impress upon the witness the duty to testify truthfully;
807.13(2)(c)6.6. Whether the quality of the communication is sufficient to understand the offered testimony;
807.13(2)(c)8.8. Such other factors as the court may, in each individual case, determine to be relevant.
807.13(3)(3) Conferences. Whenever the applicable statutes or rules so permit, or the court otherwise determines that it is practical to do so, conferences in civil actions and proceedings may be conducted by telephone.
807.13(4)(4) Notice; reporting; effect of actions taken; access. In any proceeding conducted by telephone under this section:
807.13(4)(a)(a) If the proceeding is required to be reported, a court reporter shall be in simultaneous voice communication with all parties to the call, whether or not in the physical presence of any of them.
807.13(4)(b)(b) Parties entitled to be heard shall be given prior notice of the manner and time of the proceeding. Any participant other than the reporter electing to be present with any other participant shall give reasonable notice thereof to the other participants.
807.13(4)(c)(c) Regardless of the physical location of any party to the call, any waiver, stipulation, motion, objection, decision, order or any other action taken by the court or a party to a reported telephone hearing has the same effect as if made in open court.
807.13(4)(d)(d) With the exception of scheduling conferences and pretrial conferences, proceedings shall be conducted in a courtroom or other place reasonably accessible to the public. Participants in the proceeding may participate by telephone from any location or may elect to be physically present with one or more of the other participants. Simultaneous access to the proceeding shall be provided to persons entitled to attend by means of a loudspeaker or, upon request to the court, by making a person party to the telephone call without charge.
807.13 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 141 Wis. 2d xiii (1987); Sup. Ct. Order, 158 Wis. 2d xvii (1990); 1991 a. 32; 1997 a. 252; 1999 a. 85; 2005 a. 387.
Effective date noteJudicial Council Note, 1988: This section [created] allows oral arguments to be heard, evidence to be taken, or conferences to be conducted, by telephone. Sub. (4) prescribes the basic procedure for such proceedings. [Re Order eff. 1-1-88]
Effective date noteJudicial Council Note, 1990: The change in sub. (2) (c) (intro.) from “interest of justice” to “good cause” is not intended as substantive, but merely to conform it to the language used in other statutes relating to use of telephonic procedures in judicial proceedings. SS. 967.08, 970.03 (13), 971.14 (1) (c) and (4) (b), and 971.17 (2), Stats. [Re Order eff. 1-1-91]
807.13 AnnotationThe criteria found in sub. (2) (c) for telephone testimony are similar in many ways to the criteria found in s. 885.56 (1) for videoconferencing testimony, and the procedure for requesting telephonic testimony under sub. (2) (c) is consistent with the procedure for requesting videoconferencing testimony under s. 885.60. However, sub. (2) does not apply to postconviction hearings. Sections 885.56 and 885.60 are the pertinent statutes that govern a circuit court’s consideration of a defendant’s motion for remote testimony. State v. Atwater, 2021 WI App 16, 396 Wis. 2d 535, 958 N.W.2d 533, 19-1977.
807.13 AnnotationSpeaker-Telephone Testimony in Civil Jury Trials: The Next Best Thing to Being There? Kuehn. 1988 WLR 293.
807.13 AnnotationLights, Camera, Action: Videoconference Trial Testimony. Mondschein. Wis. Law. July 1997.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: State v. Gregory F. Atwater, 2021 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Gregory F. Atwater, 2021 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 807.13(2) (2017-18), which allows testimony by telephonic or live audiovisual means under certain circumstances, and WIS.”
Welytok v. Ziolkowski, 2008 WI App 67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “2d 701 (1986), using the considerations found in Wis. Stat. § 807.13 (2)(c). In deciding to allow the telephonic testimony, the circuit court stated, "If you had a longer time to prepare, I would be less willing to take telephone testimony in a case like this.”
Wisconsin Dep't of Corr. v. Saenz, 2007 WI App 25 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “" The Department also pointed to Wis. Stat. § 807.13 (2), which permits oral testimony in civil proceedings to be presented "by telephone or live audiovisual means" under certain circumstances.”
Off. of Lawyer Reg. v. Nunnery, 2011 WI 39 (Wis. 2011). “Wis. Stat. § 807.13 (2)(c). Here, the record reflects that the OLR moved to permit the telephonic testimony because the individuals lived in Killeen, Texas, and Metairie, Louisiana.”
State v. Vennemann, 508 N.W.2d 404 (Wis. 1993). “It is distinguished from sec. 807.13, Stats., which applies to telephone proceedings in civil cases.”
In Re Marriage of Schmidt v. Schmidt, 569 N.W.2d 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “See § 807.13, STATS. However, technology is not the only alternative to consider.”
Off. of Lawyer Reg. v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, 2025 WI 7 (Wis. 2025). “§ 807.13(2). In support of its motion, OLR pointed out that Inna K.”
Off. of Lawyer Reg. v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, 2025 WI 7 (Wis. 2025). “§ 807.13(2). In support of its motion, OLR pointed out that Inna K.”
Ted B. Vallejos v. Gary Kramschuster (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 807.13(2), which allows a party to appear by phone at an evidentiary 3 No.”
State v. A. M.-C. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 807.13. She contends her telephonic appearance would not have prejudiced the State, would have only been to her own detriment, and would have been superior to having her not participate at all.”
Jackson Cnty. DHS v. I. J. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 807.13(1), which provides that “[t]he court may permit any oral argument by telephone” in civil proceedings.”
— Wis. Stat. § 807.13(1) — 1 case
Jackson Cnty. DHS v. I. J. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 807.13(1), which provides that “[t]he court may permit any oral argument by telephone” in civil proceedings.”
— Wis. Stat. § 807.13(2) — 4 cases
State v. Gregory F. Atwater, 2021 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 807.13(2) (2017-18), which allows testimony by telephonic or live audiovisual means under certain circumstances, and WIS.”
Off. of Lawyer Reg. v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, 2025 WI 7 (Wis. 2025). “§ 807.13(2). In support of its motion, OLR pointed out that Inna K.”
Off. of Lawyer Reg. v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, 2025 WI 7 (Wis. 2025). “§ 807.13(2). In support of its motion, OLR pointed out that Inna K.”
Ted B. Vallejos v. Gary Kramschuster (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 807.13(2), which allows a party to appear by phone at an evidentiary 3 No.”
— Wis. Stat. § 807.13(2)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Gregory F. Atwater, 2021 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 807.13(2) (2017-18), which allows testimony by telephonic or live audiovisual means under certain circumstances, and WIS.”
Off. of Lawyer Reg. v. Nunnery, 2011 WI 39 (Wis. 2011). “Wis. Stat. § 807.13 (2)(c). Here, the record reflects that the OLR moved to permit the telephonic testimony because the individuals lived in Killeen, Texas, and Metairie, Louisiana.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.