Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 885 — WITNESSES AND ORAL TESTIMONY
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 885.54 (2026)

Technical and operational standards

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
885.54885.54 Technical and operational standards.
885.54(1)(1) Videoconferencing technology used in circuit court proceedings shall meet the following technical and operational standards:
885.54(1)(a)(a) Participants shall be able to see, hear, and communicate with each other.
885.54(1)(b)(b) Participants shall be able to see, hear, and otherwise observe any physical evidence or exhibits presented during the proceeding.
885.54(1)(c)(c) Video and sound quality shall be adequate to allow participants to observe the demeanor and non-verbal communications of other participants and to clearly hear what is taking place in the courtroom to the same extent as if they were present in the courtroom.
885.54(1)(d)(d) Parties and counsel at remote locations shall be able, upon request, to have the courtroom cameras scan the courtroom so that remote participants may observe other persons present and activities taking place in the courtroom during the proceedings.
885.54(1)(e)(e) In matters set out in par. (g), counsel for a defendant or respondent shall have the option to be physically present with the client at the remote location, and the facilities at the remote location shall be able to accommodate counsel’s participation in the proceeding from such location. Parties and counsel at remote locations shall be able to mute the microphone system at that location so that there can be private, confidential communication between them.
885.54(1)(f)(f) If applicable, there shall be a means by which documents can be transmitted between the courtroom and the remote location.
885.54(1)(g)(g) In criminal matters, and in proceedings under chs. 48, 51, 55, 938, and 980, if not in each other’s physical presence, a separate private voice communication facility shall be available so that the defendant or respondent and his or her attorney are able to communicate privately during the entire proceeding.
885.54(1)(h)(h) The proceeding at the location from which the judge is presiding shall be visible and audible to the jury and the public, including crime victims, to the same extent as the proceeding would be if not conducted by videoconferencing.
885.54(2)(2) The moving party, including the circuit court, shall certify that the technical and operational standards at the court and the remote location are in compliance with the requirements of sub. (1).
885.54 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order No. 07-12, 2008 WI 37, 305 Wis. 2d xli; Sup. Ct. Order No. 08-21, 2008 WI 111, filed 7-30-08.
885.54 NoteComment, 2008: Section 885.54 is intended to establish stringent technical and operational standards for the use of videoconferencing technology over objection, and in considering approval by the circuit court of waivers or stipulations under s. 885.62. Mobile cart-based systems will not meet these standards in many or even most situations, but may still be used pursuant to a waiver or stipulation approved by the court. The effect will be to encourage the installation of multiple camera systems, while still allowing the use of cart-based systems when participants are in agreement to do so, which is likely to be much of the time.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2025–2026 · leading case: State v. Kordell L. Grady, 2025 WI 22 (Wis. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kordell L. Grady, 2025 WI 22 (Wis. 2025). · cites it 9× “§ 885.54(1). The rules also provide a list of criteria for circuit courts to consider when deciding whether to use videoconference technology in a case.”
State v. G. W. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 885.54 such as Zoom. See WIS. STAT. § 885.”
Sheboygan Cnty. v. N. A. L., 2026 WI 16 (Wis. 2026). “§ 885.54(1)(g) (requiring “a separate private voice communication facility” when a chapter 51 subject individual and their attorney appear remotely by videoconferencing technology from different physical locations); Comment, 2008, § 885.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.54(1) — 1 case
State v. Kordell L. Grady, 2025 WI 22 (Wis. 2025). “§ 885.54(1). The rules also provide a list of criteria for circuit courts to consider when deciding whether to use videoconference technology in a case.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.54(1)(g) — 2 cases
State v. Kordell L. Grady, 2025 WI 22 (Wis. 2025). “§ 885.54(1). The rules also provide a list of criteria for circuit courts to consider when deciding whether to use videoconference technology in a case.”
Sheboygan Cnty. v. N. A. L., 2026 WI 16 (Wis. 2026). “§ 885.54(1)(g) (requiring “a separate private voice communication facility” when a chapter 51 subject individual and their attorney appear remotely by videoconferencing technology from different physical locations); Comment, 2008, § 885.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.54(2) — 1 case
State v. Kordell L. Grady, 2025 WI 22 (Wis. 2025). “§ 885.54(1). The rules also provide a list of criteria for circuit courts to consider when deciding whether to use videoconference technology in a case.”
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.