Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 901.02 (2026)
Purpose and construction
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
901.02901.02 Purpose and construction. Chapters 901 to 911 shall be construed to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Thomas P. Wuensch, 911 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 2018).
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Thomas P. Wuensch, 911 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 2018). “" Wis. Stat. § 901.02 . Indeed, the rules of evidence stand as both a safeguard and cornerstone for the fair administration of justice.”
State v. Jones (In Re Commitment of Jones), 911 N.W.2d 97 (Wis. 2018). “§ 901.02 . In this regard, the admissibility of evidence is distinguished from the weight given to evidence that is admissible; the court's role is to admit evidence that meets the prescribed standards, which the factfinder then weighs to ascertain the truth.”
State v. Manuel, 2005 WI 75 (Wis. 2005). “Although the rules are to be construed in such a manner as "to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly…”
State v. Brown, 2004 WI App 33 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Overruling Brown's objection, the court acknowledged that the report was hearsay, expressed some doubt about its admissibility, but concluded that: (1) the report was relevant; (2) the fair and prompt administration of justice allowed its introduction, see Wis. Stat. § 901.02 ;…”
State v. Jiles, 2003 WI 66 (Wis. 2003). “§ 901.02 provides guidance to courts. The rules of evidence "shall be construed to secure fairness in administration .”
State v. Mordica, 484 N.W.2d 352 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “" Section 901.02, Stats. We are well aware of our duty to appropriately defer to the discretionary rulings of the trial court on evidentiary matters.”
State v. Williquette, 526 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. 1995). “As noted in sec. 901.02, Stats.: "Chapters 901 to 911 shall be construed to secure fairness in administration .”
State v. Beaver, 512 N.W.2d 254 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “" See § 901.02, STATS. Obviously, evidence which is inaccurate or unreliable does not serve this end.”
Schultz v. State, 264 N.W.2d 245 (Wis. 1978). “Sec. 901.02, Stats.; sec. 904.03, Stats. Thus, in the final analysis, this court must be convinced that the cumulative effect of the trial court’s questioning of witnesses and its general direction of the course of the trial had a substantial prejudicial effect upon the jurors.”
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Olson, 2016 WI App 14 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “" Wis. Stat. § 901.02 . Having concluded that the trial court properly admitted Exhibits 6 and 7, we do not address Deutsche Bank's alternate arguments concerning the admissibility of those documents under Wis.”
State v. Stawicki, 286 N.W.2d 612 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “Such an interpretation is contrary to the goal of fairness in administration prescribed by sec. 901.02, Stats., particularly where no objection was made.”
State v. Anthony Jones (Wis. 2018). “§ 901.02 . In this regard, the admissibility of evidence is distinguished from the weight given to evidence that is admissible; the court's role is to admit evidence that meets the prescribed standards, which the factfinder then weighs to ascertain the truth.”
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.