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

Wis. Stat. § 906.07 (2026)

Who may impeach

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
906.07906.07 Who may impeach. The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness.
906.07 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R169 (1973); 1991 a. 32.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: State v. Johnson, 2004 WI 94 (Wis. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Johnson, 2004 WI 94 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 4× “See Wis. Stat. § 906.07 (2001-02) (stating the credibility of any witness may be attacked by any party).”
State v. Burns, 2011 WI 22 (Wis. 2011). · cites it 3× “Burns contended that they were admissible under Wis. Stat. § 906.07 (2007-08) 5 and Wis. Stat.”
State v. Sonnenberg, 344 N.W.2d 95 (Wis. 1984). · cites it 2× “607 (the federal counterpart to sec. 906.07, Stats.) and upheld the conviction.”
State v. Burns, 332 N.W.2d 757 (Wis. 1983). · cites it 2× “Sec. 906.07, Stats. 1981-82. The majority confuses the interrelated concepts of unavailability because of mental illness or infirmity, competency, and credibility.”
State v. Long, 2002 WI App 114 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “" Wis. Stat. § 906.07 (1999-2000). 3 ¶ 23. Nevertheless, Long argues the probative value of the gang affiliation evidence was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues.”
Victorson v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transp. Corp., 234 N.W.2d 332 (Wis. 1975). “The adoption of sec. 906.07, Stats., which allows that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling him, grew mainly out of dissatisfaction with the rule against impeachment *359 of a party’s own witness.”
State v. Jesse E. Bodie (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 906.07. ¶34 As indicated above, C.D. gave inconsistent answers to the prosecution’s questions about the effects of the shooting on her two daughters.”
State v. Thomas J Busa (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “Friedman testified only regarding his bare-bones conclusion that the victim could not have been a contributor to the minor DNA profile found on Busa’s fingernail.”
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.