Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 967 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — GENERAL PROVISIONS
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 967.08 (2026)

Telephone or live audiovisual proceedings

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
967.08967.08 Telephone or live audiovisual proceedings.
967.08(1)(1) The court may, upon the motion of any party or upon its own motion, conduct proceedings referred to in this section by telephone or live audiovisual means, if available. A party may petition the court to conduct a proceeding by telephone or live audiovisual means. If the proceeding is required to be reported under SCR 71.01 (2), the proceeding shall be reported by a court reporter who is in simultaneous voice communication with all parties to the proceeding. Regardless of the physical location of any party to a proceeding conducted by telephone or live audiovisual means, any plea, waiver, stipulation, motion, objection, decision, order or other action taken by the court or any party shall have the same effect as if made in open court. With the exceptions of scheduling conferences, pretrial conferences, and, during hours the court is not in session, setting, review, modification of bail and other conditions of release under ch. 969, the proceeding shall be conducted in a courtroom or other place reasonably accessible to the public. Simultaneous access to the proceeding shall be provided to persons entitled to attend by means of a loudspeaker, live audiovisual means, or, upon request to the court, by allowing a person entitled to attend to listen to or view the proceedings without charge.
Down
Up
967.08(2)(2) The court may permit any criminal proceeding under chs. 968 to 973 to be conducted by telephone or live audiovisual means if both parties consent to do so.
967.08(4)(4) If any party objects to the use of telephone or live audiovisual means for a critical stage of the proceedings, the court shall sustain the objection.
967.08(5)(5) For any other objections to the use of telephone or live audiovisual means, the court shall consider the factors outlined in s. 885.56 in determining whether to sustain or overrule the objection.
967.08 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 141 Wis. 2d xiii (1987); 1987 a. 403; Sup. Ct. Order, 158 Wis. 2d xvii (1990); 1995 a. 27, 387; 1997 a. 252; 2021 a. 141.
Effective date noteJudicial Council Note, 1988: This section [created] allows various criminal proceedings to be conducted by telephone conference or live audio-visual means, if available. Requirements for reporting and public access are preserved. [Re Order eff. 1-1-88]
967.08 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1990: [Re amendment of (1)] Supreme Court Rule 71.01 (2) specifies when a verbatim record is required of a judicial proceeding. Such a record should not be required solely because the proceeding is conducted by telephone or live audio-visual means. Likewise, the requirement in the prior rule that all telephone proceedings be conducted in the courtroom or other reasonably accessible public place discouraged the practice of setting and modifying bail by telephone conference during hours the court was not in session.
Effective date note[Re amendment of (2)] The appearances, motions and waivers listed in this subsection are rights of the defendant. If the defendant consents that telephone procedures be used, any party objecting should show good cause. [Re Order eff. 1-1-91]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: State v. Soto, 2012 WI 93 (Wis. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Soto, 2012 WI 93 (Wis. 2012). · cites it 5× “Vennemann was in prison and the hearing was conducted with a telephone *59 hookup between the court and Vennemann, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 967.08 . Id. Therefore, communications between the judge and the defendant had no video component.”
State v. Vennemann, 508 N.W.2d 404 (Wis. 1993). · cites it 8× “, when the defendant's presence is required because of substantial issues of fact.”
State v. Guck, 500 N.W.2d 910 (Wis. 1993). · cites it 8× “If the defendant chooses to waive the right to a jury trial by statement, the defendant can make such a statement in open court or by the telephonic/audio-visual means provided for in sec. 967.08, Stats. [4] A waiver made under sec.”
Joseph Van Patten v. Jodine Deppisch, 434 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2006). “The state appellate court did acknowledge that Connell's appearance by telephone violated Wis. Stat. § 967.08 , which authorizes some proceedings to be conducted by phone but does not permit an attorney to appear by phone at a plea hearing.”
State v. Gregory F. Atwater, 2021 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 967.08, and State v. Vennemann, 180 Wis.”
State v. Burks, 2004 WI App 14 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 967.08(2) (b) permits the jury-trial waiver hearing to be done by either "telephone or live audiovisual means.”
State v. Wingo, 2000 WI 31 (Wis. 2000). “§ 967.08(2)(b) (1989-1990) provided for waiver of jury trial by telephone.”
State v. Peters, 2000 WI App 154 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “§§ 967.08(2)(d), 971.04(2), none of the statutory exceptions applies.”
State v. A. M. N. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 5× “§ 967.08. 2 No. 2024AP440-CR ¶4 Aiden appeared at the status conference via Zoom.”
State v. Cesar O. Fernandez-Reyes (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 967.08 (2023-24). 3 No. 2024AP1668-CR judges on the issue of whether to grant a mistrial in this general context.”
State v. Charles Williams (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 967.08. 2 No. 2024AP1424-CR “Waiver of Right to Personal Appearance” form with the court.”
Van Patten, Joseph v. Endicott, Jeffrey (7th Cir. 2006). “at 659-60 and 1 The state appellate court did acknowledge that Connell’s appearance by telephone violated Wis. Stat. § 967.08 , which authorizes some proceedings to be conducted by phone but does not permit an attorney to appear by phone at a plea hearing.”
— Wis. Stat. § 967.08(2) — 2 cases
State v. Burks, 2004 WI App 14 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 967.08(2) (b) permits the jury-trial waiver hearing to be done by either "telephone or live audiovisual means.”
State v. A. M. N. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 967.08. 2 No. 2024AP440-CR ¶4 Aiden appeared at the status conference via Zoom.”
— Wis. Stat. § 967.08(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Wingo, 2000 WI 31 (Wis. 2000). “§ 967.08(2)(b) (1989-1990) provided for waiver of jury trial by telephone.”
— Wis. Stat. § 967.08(2)(d) — 1 case
State v. Peters, 2000 WI App 154 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “§§ 967.08(2)(d), 971.04(2), none of the statutory exceptions applies.”
— Wis. Stat. § 967.08(4) — 1 case
State v. A. M. N. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 967.08. 2 No. 2024AP440-CR ¶4 Aiden appeared at the status conference via Zoom.”
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.