Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 906 — EVIDENCE — WITNESSES
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 906.06 (2026)

Competency of juror as witness

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
906.06906.06 Competency of juror as witness.
906.06(1)(1) At the trial. A member of the jury may not testify as a witness before that jury in the trial of the case in which the member is sitting as a juror. If the juror is called so to testify, the opposing party shall be afforded an opportunity to object out of the presence of the jury.
906.06(2)(2) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations or to the effect of anything upon the juror’s or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror’s mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may the juror’s affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be received.
906.06 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R165 (1973); 1991 a. 32.
906.06 AnnotationVerdict impeachment requires evidence that is: 1) competent; 2) shows substantive grounds sufficient to overturn the verdict; and 3) shows resulting prejudice. Discussing impeachment of a verdict through juror affidavits or testimony. After Hour Welding, Inc. v. Laneil Management Co., 108 Wis. 2d 734, 324 N.W.2d 686 (1982).
906.06 AnnotationThere was probable prejudice when the question of a depraved mind was central and a juror went to the jury room with a dictionary definition of “depraved” written on a card. State v. Ott, 111 Wis. 2d 691, 331 N.W.2d 629 (Ct. App. 1983).
906.06 AnnotationA conviction was reversed when extraneous information improperly brought to the jury’s attention raised a reasonable possibility that the information had a prejudicial effect on the hypothetical average jury. State v. Poh, 116 Wis. 2d 510, 343 N.W.2d 108 (1984).
906.06 AnnotationEvidence of a juror’s racially-prejudiced remark during jury deliberations was not competent under sub. (2). State v. Shillcutt, 119 Wis. 2d 788, 350 N.W.2d 686 (1984).
906.06 AnnotationIn any jury trial, material prejudice on the part of any juror impairs the right to a jury trial. That prejudicial material was brought to only one juror’s attention and was not communicated to any other jurors is irrelevant to determining whether that information was “improperly brought to the jury’s attention” under sub. (2). Castenada v. Pederson, 185 Wis. 2d 200, 518 N.W.2d 246 (1994), State v. Messelt, 185 Wis. 2d 255, 518 N.W.2d 232 (1994).
906.06 AnnotationExtraneous information is information, other than the general wisdom that a juror is expected to possess, that a juror obtains from a non-evidentiary source. A juror who consciously brings non-evidentiary objects to show the other jurors improperly brings extraneous information before the jury. State v. Eison, 188 Wis. 2d 298, 525 N.W.2d 91 (Ct. App. 1994).
906.06 AnnotationSub. (2) does not limit the testimony of a juror regarding clerical errors in a verdict. A written verdict not reflecting the jury’s oral decision may be impeached by showing in a timely manner and beyond a reasonable doubt that all jurors are in agreement that an error was made. State v. Williquette, 190 Wis. 2d 678, 526 N.W.2d 144 (Ct. App. 1995).
906.06 AnnotationOutlining an analytical framework to be used to determine whether a new trial on the grounds of prejudice due to extraneous juror information. State v. Eison, 194 Wis. 2d 160, 533 N.W.2d 738 (1995).
906.06 AnnotationJurors may rely on their common sense and life experience during deliberations, including expertise that a juror may have on a particular subject. That a juror was a pharmacist did not make the juror’s knowledge about the particular effect of a drug extraneous information subject to inquiry under sub. (2). State v. Heitkemper, 196 Wis. 2d 218, 538 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-2659.
906.06 AnnotationThe extraneous information exception under sub. (2) is not limited to factual information but also includes legal information obtained outside the proceeding. State v. Wulff, 200 Wis. 2d 318, 546 N.W.2d 522 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1732.
906.06 AnnotationGenerally, the sole area jurors are competent to testify to is whether extraneous information was considered. Except when juror bias goes to a fundamental issue such as religion, evidence of juror perceptions is not competent, no matter how mistaken, and cannot form the basis for granting a new trial. Anderson v. Burnett County, 207 Wis. 2d 587, 558 N.W.2d 636 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-0954.
906.06 AnnotationThe trial court, and not the defendant or the defendant’s attorney, is permitted to question a juror directly at a hearing regarding juror bias. The trial court’s discretion in submitting questions suggested by the defendant is limited, but the failure to submit questions is subject to harmless error evaluation. State v. Delgado, 215 Wis. 2d 16, 572 N.W.2d 479 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2194.
906.06 AnnotationIt was reasonable to refuse to allow a former member of the jury from testifying as a witness in the same case. Broadhead v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 217 Wis. 2d 231, 579 N.W.2d 761 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-0904.
Down
Loading...
Loading...
× Details for
PDF view
Link (Permanent link)
Bookmark this location
 View toggle
 Go to top of document
Search in this chapter
 Search in this section
 Search in this agency
 Search in this chapter group
 Search in this chapter
 Search in this section
 Cross references for section
 Acts affecting this section
 References to this
 1970 Statutes Annotations
 Appellate Court Citations
 Administrative Code Index
Reference lines
 Clear highlighting
906.06 AnnotationFor a juror to be competent to testify regarding extraneous information brought to the jury within the sub. (2) exception, the information must be potentially prejudicial, which it may be if it conceivably relates to a central issue of the trial. After determining whether testimony is competent under sub. (2), the court must find clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that the juror heard or made the comments alleged and, if it does, must then decide whether prejudicial error requiring reversal exists. State v. Broomfield, 223 Wis. 2d 465, 589 N.W.2d 225 (1999), 97-0520.
906.06 AnnotationThere is no bright line rule regarding the time lag between the return of a verdict and when evidence of a clerical error in a verdict must be obtained or be rendered insufficiently trustworthy. Grice Engineering, Inc. v. Szyjewski, 2002 WI App 104, 254 Wis. 2d 743, 648 N.W.2d 487, 01-0073.
906.06 AnnotationProof beyond a reasonable doubt to impeach a civil jury trial may be supplied by showing that five-sixths of the jurors agree that the reported verdict is in error and agree on the corrected verdict, provided each of these jurors was a part of the original group in favor of the verdict. This approach meets the “all of the jurors” requirement in Williquette, 190 Wis. 2d 678 (1995). Grice Engineering, Inc. v. Szyjewski, 2002 WI App 104, 254 Wis. 2d 743, 648 N.W.2d 487, 01-0073.
906.06 AnnotationWhen a motion for a new trial is based on prejudicial extraneous information, the circuit court may grant an evidentiary hearing upon an affidavit that shows juror statements that are competent testimony and, if believed, are clear and convincing evidence of extraneous information that is potentially prejudicial. The hearing may be used to evaluate the credibility of the initial statements and to obtain additional competent testimony bearing on prejudice, such as the specific nature of the extraneous evidence and the circumstances under which it came to the jury’s attention. Juror testimony on the effect of extraneous information is not competent. Manke v. Physicians Insurance Co., 2006 WI App 50, 289 Wis. 2d 750, 712 N.W.2d 40, 05-1103.
906.06 AnnotationA specific dictionary definition of a word, even a common word, is not the type of general knowledge or accumulated life experiences that jurors are expected to possess. The dictionary definition of a word brought to the jury room and read aloud by a juror was extraneous information. There is no presumption that a hypothetical average juror would follow a jury instruction rather than a dictionary definition brought in by a juror. Instead, a court should base its prejudice analysis on a comparison of the jury instruction with the dictionary definition and on other relevant circumstances. Manke v. Physicians Insurance Co., 2006 WI App 50, 289 Wis. 2d 750, 712 N.W.2d 40, 05-1103.
906.06 AnnotationWhen a juror makes a clear statement that indicates that the juror relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the 6th amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee. For the inquiry to proceed, there must be a showing that one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict. To qualify, the statement must tend to show that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in the juror’s vote to convict. Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. 206, 137 S. Ct. 855, 197 L. Ed. 2d 107 (2017).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: State v. Carlson, 2003 WI 40 (Wis. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Carlson, 2003 WI 40 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 36× “The State objected to some evidence offered at the postconviction motion hearing as violating Wis. Stat. § 906.06 (2). [4] Carlson presented this evidence in the form of an offer of proof.”
State v. Messelt, 518 N.W.2d 2312 (Wis. 1994). · cites it 42× “[8] Subsection (2) of that statute, which is virtually identical to Rule 606(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, provides the following: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the…”
State v. Shillcutt, 350 N.W.2d 686 (Wis. 1984). · cites it 31× “Section 906.06 (2), Stats., distinguishes between "extraneous prejudicial information which was improperly brought to the jury's attention" and "any outside influence [that] was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.”
Manke v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 2006 WI App 50 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 33× “The Mankes' counsel objected to these questions based on the jurors' incompetency under Wis. Stat. § 906.06 . 6 The court overruled the objections and allowed the jurors to testify on these matters.”
State v. Broomfield, 589 N.W.2d 225 (Wis. 1999). · cites it 24× “The circuit court and court of appeals determined that Broomfield failed to establish that the "extraneous information," as defined in Wis. Stat. § 906.06 (2) (1995-96), 2 had tainted the jury, or had ever been discussed by the jury.”
State v. Poh, 343 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. 1984). · cites it 8× “[2] *515 The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing during which eleven of the twelve jurors were questioned individually to determine whether information outside the record had been brought to the jurors' attention, the nature of this information, and the circumstances under…”
State v. Miller, 2009 WI App 111 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “We conclude Miller's affidavit fails to allege facts that would entitle him to an evidentiary hearing inquiring into the validity of the verdict, let alone entitle him to a new trial.”
State v. Flynn, 527 N.W.2d 343 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “Section 906.06(2) provides an exception to this rule, allowing jurors to testify "on the question [of] whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention.”
State v. Shillcutt, 341 N.W.2d 716 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 6× “The first part of the test, that regarding the competency of the evidence, is governed by sec. 906.06(2), Stats. 1 Section 906.06(2) “is virtually identical to Rule *232 606(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which codifies the common law as it has developed in many…”
State v. Searcy, 2006 WI App 8 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “Under Wis. Stat. § 906.06 (2), the party seeking to impeach the verdict must demonstrate that a juror's testimony is admissible by establishing that: (1) the juror's testimony concerns extraneous information (rather than the deliberative process of the jurors), (2) the…”
State v. Wulff, 546 N.W.2d 522 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 20× “" Because any attempt to impeach a jury's verdict must necessarily be based upon the testimony or affidavits of jurors, the first step in analyzing such a challenge is to determine whether that evidence is admissible under § 906.06(2), STATS., which generally bars jurors from…”
After Hour Welding, Inc. v. Laneil Mgmt. Co., 324 N.W.2d 686 (Wis. 1982). · cites it 4× “The second part of the test concerns whether the evidence shows substantial grounds sufficient to set aside a verdict, as a matter of law.”
Show all 60 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 906.06(1) — 1 case
Broadhead v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 579 N.W.2d 761 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wis. Stat. § 906.06(2) — 50 cases
State v. Messelt, 518 N.W.2d 2312 (Wis. 1994). “[8] Subsection (2) of that statute, which is virtually identical to Rule 606(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, provides the following: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the…”
State v. Shillcutt, 350 N.W.2d 686 (Wis. 1984). “Section 906.06 (2), Stats., distinguishes between "extraneous prejudicial information which was improperly brought to the jury's attention" and "any outside influence [that] was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.”
State v. Flynn, 527 N.W.2d 343 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Section 906.06(2) provides an exception to this rule, allowing jurors to testify "on the question [of] whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention.”
Manke v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 2006 WI App 50 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “The Mankes' counsel objected to these questions based on the jurors' incompetency under Wis. Stat. § 906.06 . 6 The court overruled the objections and allowed the jurors to testify on these matters.”
State v. Poh, 343 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. 1984). “[2] *515 The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing during which eleven of the twelve jurors were questioned individually to determine whether information outside the record had been brought to the jurors' attention, the nature of this information, and the circumstances under…”
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.