Wis. Stat. § 906.03
Oath or affirmation
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
906.03(1)(1) Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness’s conscience and impress the witness’s mind with the witness’s duty to do so.
906.03(2)(2) The oath may be administered substantially in the following form: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
906.03(3)(3) Every person who shall declare that the person has conscientious scruples against taking the oath, or swearing in the usual form, shall make a solemn declaration or affirmation, which may be in the following form: Do you solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the testimony you shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; and this you do under the pains and penalties of perjury.
906.03(4)(4) The assent to the oath or affirmation by the person making it may be manifested by the uplifted hand.
906.03 AnnotationA witness who is a young child need not be formally sworn to meet the oath or affirmation requirement. State v. Hanson, 149 Wis. 2d 474, 439 N.W.2d 133 (1989).
906.03 AnnotationThe purpose of an oath or affirmation is to impress upon the swearing individual an appropriate sense of obligation to tell the truth. The statutes do not invoke specific, mandated language or formulaic procedures in the administration of an oath or affirmation. The oath or affirmation requirement is an issue of substance, not form. State v. Moeser, 2022 WI 76, 405 Wis. 2d 1, 982 N.W.2d 45, 19-2184.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thomas P. Wuensch
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thomas P. Wuensch (2018)
“See Wis. Stat. § 906.03 . ¶53 The comments to SCR 20:3.”
State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser (2022)
“" Wis. Stat. § 906.03 (1). We agree with the circuit court's conclusion that "the language in the affidavit indicates .”
State v. Canon (2001)
“The oath that each witness is required to take prior to testifying in court is set forth in Wis. Stat. § 906.03 . We have observed that the purpose of this oath "is to impress the person who takes the oath with a due sense of obligation, so as to secure the purity and truth of…”
State v. Gove (1989)
“, asking her a series of questions apparently designed to determine if she could satisfy the oath or affirmation requirements of sec. 906.03(1), Stats., cited below. 1 The trial court first conducted the voir dire in the jury’s presence but was not satisfied that T.”
Kellner v. Christian (1994)
“Likewise, § 906.03, STATS., merely describes the proper manner in which an oath may be administered to a witness and does not indicate whether evidence of such oath must be provided to the attorney general in a notice of claim pursuant to § 893.”
State of Wisconsin Ex Rel. Individual Subpoenaed to Appear at Waukesha County John Doe Case No. 2003 Jd 001 v. Mac Davis (2005)
“" 4 Wis. Stat. §906.03 . 5 Pursuant to an order issued by the court of appeals, the State was made a respondent in this case along with Judge Davis.”
State v. Hanson (1989)
“” 3 The judge then stated he did not believe the child could satisfy sec. 906.03, Stats. 4 The judge said he would take the matter of competency under advisement.”
State v. Angel Mercado (2020)
“§ 906.03. This provides a heightened level of trustworthiness for the deposition statement which is not necessarily present with a child’s videotaped statement.”
State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser (2021)
“§ 906.03, entitled, “Oath or affirmation,” sheds some light on what “usual forms” an oath or affirmation may take, at least in the context of testimony by witnesses in court proceedings.”
State v. Dwyer (1989)
“Sec. 906.03, Stats. 1987-88, provides that “before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that he will testify truthfully.”
State v. Johnathan L. Johnson (2020)
“To that end, § 906.03 provides guidance on administering both an oath and an affirmation: 8 WISCONSIN STAT.”
County of Milwaukee v. Kent Austin Williams (2026)
“Williams never sought the admission of the dash camera footage, and he declined to offer testimony.”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.03(1) — 5 cases
State v. Gove (1989)
“, asking her a series of questions apparently designed to determine if she could satisfy the oath or affirmation requirements of sec. 906.03(1), Stats., cited below. 1 The trial court first conducted the voir dire in the jury’s presence but was not satisfied that T.”
State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser (2022)
“" Wis. Stat. § 906.03 (1). We agree with the circuit court's conclusion that "the language in the affidavit indicates .”
State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser (2021)
“§ 906.03, entitled, “Oath or affirmation,” sheds some light on what “usual forms” an oath or affirmation may take, at least in the context of testimony by witnesses in court proceedings.”
County of Milwaukee v. Kent Austin Williams (2026)
“Williams never sought the admission of the dash camera footage, and he declined to offer testimony.”
State v. Johnathan L. Johnson (2020)
“To that end, § 906.03 provides guidance on administering both an oath and an affirmation: 8 WISCONSIN STAT.”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.03(2) — 2 cases
State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser (2021)
“§ 906.03, entitled, “Oath or affirmation,” sheds some light on what “usual forms” an oath or affirmation may take, at least in the context of testimony by witnesses in court proceedings.”
State v. Johnathan L. Johnson (2020)
“To that end, § 906.03 provides guidance on administering both an oath and an affirmation: 8 WISCONSIN STAT.”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.03(3) — 1 case
State v. Johnathan L. Johnson (2020)
“To that end, § 906.03 provides guidance on administering both an oath and an affirmation: 8 WISCONSIN STAT.”
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.