Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 885.60 (2026)

Use in criminal cases and proceedings under chapters 48, 51, 55, 938, and 980

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

885.60885.60 Use in criminal cases and proceedings under chapters 48, 51, 55, 938, and 980.

885.60(1)(1) Subject to the standards and criteria set forth in ss. 885.54 and 885.56 and to the limitations of sub. (2), a circuit court may, on its own motion or at the request of any party, in any criminal case or matter under chs. 48, 51, 55, 938, or 980, permit the use of videoconferencing technology in any pre-trial, trial or fact-finding, or post-trial proceeding.

885.60(2)(2)

885.60(2)(a)(a) Except as may otherwise be provided by law, a defendant in a criminal case and a respondent in a matter listed in sub. (1) is entitled to be physically present in the courtroom at all trials and sentencing or dispositional hearings.

885.60(2)(b)(b) A proponent of a witness via videoconferencing technology at any evidentiary hearing, trial, or fact-finding hearing shall file a notice of intention to present testimony by videoconference technology 20 days prior to the scheduled start of the proceeding. Any other party may file an objection to the testimony of a witness by videoconference technology within 10 days of the filing of the notice of intention. If the time limits of the proceeding do not permit the time periods provided for in this paragraph, the court may in its discretion shorten the time to file notice of intention and objection.

885.60(2)(c)(c) If an objection is made by the plaintiff or petitioner in a matter listed in sub. (1), the court shall determine the objection in the exercise of its discretion under the criteria set forth in s. 885.56.

885.60(2)(d)(d) Except for an objection relating to the testimony of an expert witness by videoconference technology in a matter under ch. 51 or 55, if an objection is made by the defendant or respondent in a matter listed in sub. (1), regarding any proceeding where he or she is entitled to be physically present in the courtroom, the court shall sustain the objection. For all other proceedings in a matter listed in sub. (1), including an objection relating to the testimony of an expert witness by videoconference technology in a matter under ch. 51 or 55, the court shall determine the objection in the exercise of its discretion under the criteria set forth in s. 885.56.

885.60 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order No. 07-12, 2008 WI 37, 305 Wis. 2d xli; 2011 a. 32; 2025 a. 125.

885.60 NoteComment, 2008: It is the intent of s. 885.60 to scrupulously protect the rights of criminal defendants and respondents in matters which could result in loss of liberty or fundamental rights with respect to their children by preserving to such litigants the right to be physically present in court at all critical stages of their proceedings. This section also protects such litigants’ rights to adequate representation by counsel by eliminating the potential problems that might arise where counsel and litigants are either physically separated, or counsel are with litigants at remote locations and not present in court.

885.60 Annotation“Critical stages of the proceedings” is not defined under this section, but incorporates existing law as well as new law as it is adopted or decided. This section is not intended to create new rights in litigants to be physically present which they do not otherwise possess; it is intended merely to preserve such rights, and to avoid abrogating by virtue of the adoption of this subchapter any such rights.

885.60 AnnotationThis section is also intended to preserve constitutional and other rights to confront and effectively cross-examine witnesses. It provides the right to prevent the use of videoconferencing technology to present such adverse witnesses, but rather require that such witnesses be physically produced in the courtroom. In requiring a defendant’s objection to the use of videoconferencing to be sustained, this section also preserves the defendant’s speedy trial rights intact.

885.60 AnnotationObjections by the State or petitioner to the use of videoconferencing technology to present defense witnesses are resolved by the court in the same manner as provided in civil cases and special proceedings under ss. 885.54 and 885.56.

885.60 AnnotationThe criteria found in s. 807.13 (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 s. 807.13 (2) (c) is consistent with the procedure for requesting videoconferencing testimony under this section. However, s. 807.13 (2) does not apply to postconviction hearings. This section and s. 885.56 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.

885.60 AnnotationSub. (2) (a) provides that a respondent in a protective placement matter is entitled to be physically present in the courtroom at all dispositional hearings. This section does not allow a petitioner to arrange for the respondent to appear at the hearing by video conference, unless the respondent objects and asserts the right to be physically present. Sub. (2) (d) addresses a respondent’s ability to object to the testimony of other witnesses being presented via video conference, not the respondent’s own remote appearance. Racine County v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62, 405 Wis. 2d 383, 983 N.W.2d 721, 22-0765.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: State v. Soto, 2012 WI 93 (Wis. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Soto, 2012 WI 93 (Wis. 2012). · cites it 14× “04 (1) means that a criminal defendant has a right to personally appear at the proceedings where judgment is pronounced, here, at the plea hearing. Therefore, in the context of § 971.”

Waukesha Cnty. v. S.L.L. (In Re Mental Commitment of S.L.L.), 929 N.W.2d 140 (Wis. 2019). · cites it 5× “§ 885.60 (2)(a). Matters listed in subsection 1 include Chapter 51 proceedings.”

State v. Gregory F. Atwater, 2021 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “2019AP1977-CR videoconferencing technology,11 and § 885.60 sets forth a procedure for such a motion in any criminal case.”

Racine Cnty. v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 20× “2d 43, ¶21 (identifying § 885.60 as “related” to criminal statute governing presence of a defendant at certain proceedings).”

Adams Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Dep't v. D.J.S. (In re E.W.D.), 932 N.W.2d 195 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 14× “56 and to the limitations of sub. (2), a circuit court may, on its own motion or at the request of any party, in any criminal case or matter under ch[ ].”

Washburn Cnty. v. L. R. Y. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 11× “However, § 885.60 removes the circuit court’s discretion to allow videoconferencing if a defendant or respondent objects to its use and the defendant or respondent is entitled to be physically present in the courtroom.”

La Crosse Cnty. DHS v. B. B. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 7× “§ 885.60 governs the use of teleconferencing technology in certain types of cases, including 21 Nos.”

Jackson Cnty. DHS v. I. J. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “60, which governs the use of videoconferencing technology in certain proceedings, and that, alternatively, the court erroneously exercised its discretion by permitting her appearance by video without considering the factors set forth in WIS.”

State v. Kordell L. Grady, 2025 WI 22 (Wis. 2025). “6Municipal courts and other tribunals at which parties appear with their attorneys should follow these same best practices. 2 STATE v. GRADY JUSTICE DALLET, concurring privately.”

Sheboygan Cnty. v. N. A. L., 2026 WI 16 (Wis. 2026). · cites it 3× “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, § 885.60 (“This section also protects such litigants’…”

State v. G. W. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “56(1) before refusing to allow him to participate virtually. We disagree. ¶20 The circuit court has discretion to permit a party to appear virtually in a TPR proceeding “[s]ubject to the standards and criteria set forth in [WIS.”

Outagamie Cnty. v. R. G. K. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 885.60(1), (2)(a); Addington v. Texas, 441 U.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 885.60(1) — 3 cases

Waukesha Cnty. v. S.L.L. (In Re Mental Commitment of S.L.L.), 929 N.W.2d 140 (Wis. 2019). “§ 885.60 (2)(a). Matters listed in subsection 1 include Chapter 51 proceedings.”

Racine Cnty. v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “2d 43, ¶21 (identifying § 885.60 as “related” to criminal statute governing presence of a defendant at certain proceedings).”

Outagamie Cnty. v. R. G. K. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 885.60(1), (2)(a); Addington v. Texas, 441 U.”

— Wis. Stat. § 885.60(2) — 3 cases

Racine Cnty. v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “2d 43, ¶21 (identifying § 885.60 as “related” to criminal statute governing presence of a defendant at certain proceedings).”

Adams Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Dep't v. D.J.S. (In re E.W.D.), 932 N.W.2d 195 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “56 and to the limitations of sub. (2), a circuit court may, on its own motion or at the request of any party, in any criminal case or matter under ch[ ].”

State v. G. W. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “56(1) before refusing to allow him to participate virtually. We disagree. ¶20 The circuit court has discretion to permit a party to appear virtually in a TPR proceeding “[s]ubject to the standards and criteria set forth in [WIS.”

— Wis. Stat. § 885.60(2)(a) — 8 cases

State v. Soto, 2012 WI 93 (Wis. 2012). “04 (1) means that a criminal defendant has a right to personally appear at the proceedings where judgment is pronounced, here, at the plea hearing. Therefore, in the context of § 971.”

State v. Gregory F. Atwater, 2021 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “2019AP1977-CR videoconferencing technology,11 and § 885.60 sets forth a procedure for such a motion in any criminal case.”

Racine Cnty. v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “2d 43, ¶21 (identifying § 885.60 as “related” to criminal statute governing presence of a defendant at certain proceedings).”

Jackson Cnty. DHS v. I. J. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “60, which governs the use of videoconferencing technology in certain proceedings, and that, alternatively, the court erroneously exercised its discretion by permitting her appearance by video without considering the factors set forth in WIS.”

— Wis. Stat. § 885.60(2)(b) — 2 cases

La Crosse Cnty. DHS v. B. B. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 885.60 governs the use of teleconferencing technology in certain types of cases, including 21 Nos.”

State v. Leroy Rice, Jr. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).

— Wis. Stat. § 885.60(2)(c) — 1 case

State v. Gregory F. Atwater, 2021 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “2019AP1977-CR videoconferencing technology,11 and § 885.60 sets forth a procedure for such a motion in any criminal case.”

— Wis. Stat. § 885.60(2)(d) — 4 cases

Racine Cnty. v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “2d 43, ¶21 (identifying § 885.60 as “related” to criminal statute governing presence of a defendant at certain proceedings).”

Washburn Cnty. v. L. R. Y. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “However, § 885.60 removes the circuit court’s discretion to allow videoconferencing if a defendant or respondent objects to its use and the defendant or respondent is entitled to be physically present in the courtroom.”

La Crosse Cnty. DHS v. B. B. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 885.60 governs the use of teleconferencing technology in certain types of cases, including 21 Nos.”

Sheboygan Cnty. v. N. A. L., 2026 WI 16 (Wis. 2026). “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, § 885.60 (“This section also protects such litigants’…”

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.