Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 906.15 (2026)
Exclusion of witnesses
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
906.15(1)(1) At the request of a party, the judge or a circuit court commissioner shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. The judge or circuit court commissioner may also make the order of his or her own motion.
906.15(2)(b)(b) An officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney.
906.15(2)(c)(c) A person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause.
906.15(2)(d)(d) A victim, as defined in s. 950.02 (4), in a criminal case or a victim, as defined in s. 938.02 (20m), in a delinquency proceeding under ch. 938, unless the judge or circuit court commissioner finds that exclusion of the victim is necessary to provide a fair trial for the defendant or a fair fact-finding hearing for the juvenile. The presence of a victim during the testimony of other witnesses may not by itself be a basis for a finding that exclusion of the victim is necessary to provide a fair trial for the defendant or a fair fact-finding hearing for the juvenile.
906.15(3)(3) The judge or circuit court commissioner may direct that all excluded and non-excluded witnesses be kept separate until called and may prevent them from communicating with one another until they have been examined or the hearing is ended.
906.15 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R202 (1973); 1991 a. 32; 1997 a. 181; 2001 a. 61.
906.15 AnnotationUnder sub. (3), a circuit court has the authority to prevent an attorney from sharing with a nonparty witness who has yet to testify the testimony of prior witnesses during a recess, including barring a witness from reading a transcript of that testimony. State v. Copeland, 2011 WI App 28, 332 Wis. 2d 283, 798 N.W.2d 250, 08-2713.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: State v. Green, 2002 WI 68 (Wis. 2002).
State v. Green, 2002 WI 68 (Wis. 2002). “There are no allegations that Haack heard testimony of other witnesses in the courtroom, that Haack discussed her testimony with other witnesses, or that the prosecutor discussed the testimony of other witnesses with Haack.”
State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21 (Wis. 2009). “See Wis. Stat. § 906.15 and § 785.02. Wisconsin Stat.”
State v. Evans, 2000 WI App 178 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “Backes then asked whether there would be "any objection" to Friedman's presence at counsel table if Backes would agree not to call him as a witness, to which the court responded: "[W]hy don't you see whether or not you can do this without his presence at the .. . counsel…”
State v. Copeland, 2011 WI App 28 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that Wisconsin's sequestration statute, Wis. Stat. § 906.15 (2007-08), 1 did not grant it the authority to issue an order limiting a witness's communications with an attorney.”
Bagnowski v. Preway, Inc., 405 N.W.2d 746 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “Section 906.15, Stats., provides in part: At the request of a party the judge .”
Tina B. v. Richard H., 2014 WI App 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “§ 906.15 controls witness sequestration and provides, as relevant here: (1) At the request of a party, the judge or a circuit court commissioner shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.”
State ex rel. Block v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 2000 WI App 72 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “Finally, Block refers us to Wis. Stat. § 906.15 (1) and § 906.15(2)(a), which state that while a judge or court commissioner may, at the request of a party, order that witnesses be excluded "so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses," this authority "does not…”
State v. Terrance L. Curtis (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 906.15 (2017-18)3 provides the framework governing the circuit court’s decision as to the exclusion of witnesses.”
State v. Preston D. Kraft (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 906.15(2), not on Wisconsin constitutional grounds.”
Attorney Thomas L. Potter v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee Cnty. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 906.15(1) provides in part that “[a]t the request of a party, the judge … shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.”
Winnebago Cnty. v. J.D.J. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 906.15(1) states that “[a]t the request of a party, the judge or a circuit court commissioner shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.”
State v. Richard W. Littlejohn, Jr. (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 906.15(1) (2017-18).2 “The purpose of sequestration is to assure a fair trial—specifically, to prevent a witness from ‘shaping his [or her] testimony’ based on the testimony of other witnesses.”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.15(1) — 4 cases
State v. Green, 2002 WI 68 (Wis. 2002). “There are no allegations that Haack heard testimony of other witnesses in the courtroom, that Haack discussed her testimony with other witnesses, or that the prosecutor discussed the testimony of other witnesses with Haack.”
State v. Richard W. Littlejohn, Jr. (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 906.15(1) (2017-18).2 “The purpose of sequestration is to assure a fair trial—specifically, to prevent a witness from ‘shaping his [or her] testimony’ based on the testimony of other witnesses.”
Winnebago Cnty. v. J.D.J. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 906.15(1) states that “[a]t the request of a party, the judge or a circuit court commissioner shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.”
Attorney Thomas L. Potter v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee Cnty. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 906.15(1) provides in part that “[a]t the request of a party, the judge … shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.15(2) — 1 case
State v. Preston D. Kraft (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 906.15(2), not on Wisconsin constitutional grounds.”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.15(2)(a) — 1 case
State ex rel. Block v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 2000 WI App 72 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “Finally, Block refers us to Wis. Stat. § 906.15 (1) and § 906.15(2)(a), which state that while a judge or court commissioner may, at the request of a party, order that witnesses be excluded "so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses," this authority "does not…”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.15(2)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Evans, 2000 WI App 178 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “Backes then asked whether there would be "any objection" to Friedman's presence at counsel table if Backes would agree not to call him as a witness, to which the court responded: "[W]hy don't you see whether or not you can do this without his presence at the .. . counsel…”
State v. Copeland, 2011 WI App 28 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that Wisconsin's sequestration statute, Wis. Stat. § 906.15 (2007-08), 1 did not grant it the authority to issue an order limiting a witness's communications with an attorney.”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.15(2)(d) — 2 cases
Attorney Thomas L. Potter v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee Cnty. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 906.15(1) provides in part that “[a]t the request of a party, the judge … shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.”
State v. Terrance L. Curtis (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 906.15 (2017-18)3 provides the framework governing the circuit court’s decision as to the exclusion of witnesses.”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.15(3) — 2 cases
State v. Copeland, 2011 WI App 28 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that Wisconsin's sequestration statute, Wis. Stat. § 906.15 (2007-08), 1 did not grant it the authority to issue an order limiting a witness's communications with an attorney.”
Winnebago Cnty. v. J.D.J. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 906.15(1) states that “[a]t the request of a party, the judge or a circuit court commissioner shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.”
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.