Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 906.14 (2026)
Calling and interrogation of witnesses by judge
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
906.14(1)(1) Calling by judge. The judge may, on the judge’s own motion or at the suggestion of a party, call witnesses, and all parties are entitled to cross-examine witnesses thus called.
906.14(2)(2) Interrogation by judge. The judge may interrogate witnesses, whether called by the judge or by a party.
906.14(3)(3) Objections. Objections to the calling of witnesses by the judge or to interrogation by the judge may be made at the time or at the next available opportunity when the jury is not present.
906.14 AnnotationA trial judge’s elicitation of trial testimony is improper if the cumulative effect of the judge’s questioning and direction of the course of the trial has a substantial prejudicial effect on the jury. Schultz v. State, 82 Wis. 2d 737, 264 N.W.2d 245 (1978).
906.14 AnnotationThe practice of judicial interrogation is a dangerous one but does not require that no court should be allowed to call and question a witness prior to completion of the presentation of evidence. State v. Carprue, 2004 WI 111, 274 Wis. 2d 656, 683 N.W.2d 31, 02-2781.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Carprue, 2004 WI 111 (Wis. 2004).
State v. Carprue, 2004 WI 111 (Wis. 2004). “The issues presented by the court's actions could be addressed under any of three legal theories: (1) Judge Schellinger erred by exceeding the implicit limitations of her authority to call and interrogate witnesses under Wis. Stat. § 906.14 ; *671 (2) Carprue was denied the…”
Covelli v. Covelli, 2006 WI App 121 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “See Wis. Stat. § 906.14 (2). Section 906.14(2) permits the trial judge to "interrogate witnesses, whether called by the judge or by a party.”
State v. Carprue, 2003 WI App 148 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 906.14. "Clarification questions" do not interfere with a defendant's constitutional right to an impartial judge.”
Ehlinger v. Hauser, 2008 WI App 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “He's not anybody's expert witness; but I would, if you have questions just on those aspects of his report, allow him to testily.”
State v. Asfoor, 249 N.W.2d 529 (Wis. 1977). “*437 Sec. 906.14(2), Stats., governs the interrogation of witnesses by a judge.”
Sommers v. Friedman, 493 N.W.2d 393 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “Here, of course, the questions were "relayed" through the trial court after giving counsel the opportunity to object.”
State v. Washington, 266 N.W.2d 597 (Wis. 1978). “Section 906.14, Stats. The test at trial and in a John Doe is whether a judge conducts himself or herself in a fair and impartial manner.”
State v. Wolter, 270 N.W.2d 230 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978). “18 Sec. 906.14(2), Stats. 19 State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis.”
Haugen v. Haugen, 262 N.W.2d 769 (Wis. 1978). “Sec. 906.14, Stats. However, when a trial court confers with the minor children in chambers, a record of the event should be made as a matter of course.”
Schultz v. State, 264 N.W.2d 245 (Wis. 1978). “2d 529 (1976) this court stated: “Sec. 906.14(2), Stats., governs the interrogation of witnesses by a judge.”
Aurora Consol. Health Care & Sentry Ins. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2012 WI 49 (Wis. 2012). “§ 906.14(1), which deals with witnesses that are called by a judge, specifically provides that the parties are entitled to cross-examine such witnesses: The judge may, on the judge's own motion or at the suggestion of a party, call witnesses, and all parties are entitled to…”
In Re Interest of Brandon SS, 507 N.W.2d 94 (Wis. 1993). “[20] Because its decision was made without hearing important evidence relevant to Brandon's longstanding relationship with his grandparents and Brandon's best interests, we hold that the Waupaca court erroneously exercised its discretion. We remand this matter for further…”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.14(1) — 3 cases
Ehlinger v. Hauser, 2008 WI App 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “He's not anybody's expert witness; but I would, if you have questions just on those aspects of his report, allow him to testily.”
Aurora Consol. Health Care & Sentry Ins. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2012 WI 49 (Wis. 2012). “§ 906.14(1), which deals with witnesses that are called by a judge, specifically provides that the parties are entitled to cross-examine such witnesses: The judge may, on the judge's own motion or at the suggestion of a party, call witnesses, and all parties are entitled to…”
After Hour Welding, Inc. v. Laneil Mgmt. Co., 312 N.W.2d 859 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
— Wis. Stat. § 906.14(2) — 9 cases
Covelli v. Covelli, 2006 WI App 121 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “See Wis. Stat. § 906.14 (2). Section 906.14(2) permits the trial judge to "interrogate witnesses, whether called by the judge or by a party.”
State v. Asfoor, 249 N.W.2d 529 (Wis. 1977). “*437 Sec. 906.14(2), Stats., governs the interrogation of witnesses by a judge.”
Sommers v. Friedman, 493 N.W.2d 393 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “Here, of course, the questions were "relayed" through the trial court after giving counsel the opportunity to object.”
State v. Wolter, 270 N.W.2d 230 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978). “18 Sec. 906.14(2), Stats. 19 State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis.”
Schultz v. State, 264 N.W.2d 245 (Wis. 1978). “2d 529 (1976) this court stated: “Sec. 906.14(2), Stats., governs the interrogation of witnesses by a judge.”
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.