Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 971.10 (2026)
Speedy trial
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
971.10(1)(1) In misdemeanor actions trial shall commence within 60 days from the date of the defendant’s initial appearance in court.
971.10(2)(a)(a) The trial of a defendant charged with a felony shall commence within 90 days from the date trial is demanded by any party in writing or on the record. If the demand is made in writing, a copy shall be served upon the opposing party. The demand may not be made until after the filing of the information or indictment.
971.10(2)(b)(b) If the court is unable to schedule a trial pursuant to par. (a), the court shall request assignment of another judge pursuant to s. 751.03.
971.10(3)(a)(a) A court may grant a continuance in a case, upon its own motion or the motion of any party, if the ends of justice served by taking action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. A continuance shall not be granted under this paragraph unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
971.10(3)(b)(b) The factors, among others, which the court shall consider in determining whether to grant a continuance under par. (a) are:
971.10(3)(b)1.1. Whether the failure to grant the continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of the proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage of justice.
971.10(3)(b)2.2. Whether the case taken as a whole is so unusual and so complex, due to the number of defendants or the nature of the prosecution or otherwise, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the periods of time established by this section.
971.10(3)(c)(c) No continuance under par. (a) may be granted because of general congestion of the court’s calendar or the lack of diligent preparation or the failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the state.
971.10(4)(4) Every defendant not tried in accordance with this section shall be discharged from custody but the obligations of the bond or other conditions of release of a defendant shall continue until modified or until the bond is released or the conditions removed.
971.10 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 40 s. 93; 1971 c. 46, 298; 1977 c. 187 s. 135; 1979 c. 34; 1993 a. 155; 1997 a. 181.
971.10 AnnotationA federal court applied balancing test is applicable to review the exercise of a trial court’s discretion on a request for the substitution of trial counsel, with the associated request for a continuance. Phifer v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 24, 218 N.W.2d 354 (1974).
971.10 AnnotationA party requesting a continuance on grounds of surprise must show: 1) actual surprise from an unforeseeable development; 2) when surprise is caused by unexpected testimony, the probability of producing contradictory or impeaching evidence; and 3) resulting prejudice if the request is denied. Angus v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 191, 251 N.W.2d 28 (1977).
971.10 AnnotationA delay of 84 days between a defendant’s first court appearance and trial on misdemeanor traffic charges was not so inordinate as to raise a presumption of prejudice. State v. Mullis, 81 Wis. 2d 454, 260 N.W.2d 696 (1978).
971.10 AnnotationA stay of proceedings caused by the state’s interlocutory appeal stopped the running of the time period under sub. (2). State ex rel. Rabe v. Ferris, 97 Wis. 2d 63, 293 N.W.2d 151 (1980).
971.10 AnnotationViolations of the right to a speedy trial are waived by entry of a guilty plea. State v. Asmus, 2010 WI App 48, 324 Wis. 2d 427, 782 N.W.2d 435, 08-2980.
971.10 AnnotationFollowing a guilty plea, the defendant could not raise a speedy trial issue. United States v. Gaertner, 583 F.2d 308 (1978).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67
cases (35 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: State v. Davis, 2001 WI 136 (Wis. 2001).
State v. Davis, 2001 WI 136 (Wis. 2001). “11(2) that a criminal case against an accused shall be brought on for trial within the 120-day time period "subject to Wis. Stat. § 971.10 ," the "speedy trial" statute.”
State v. Adams, 558 N.W.2d 923 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “, had been violated because Adams was entitled to a trial within 120 days of his December 7, 1994 request for a speedy trial. 1 The court denied the motion.”
State v. Martin, 470 N.W.2d 900 (Wis. 1991). “See generally sec. 971.10, Stats. (discussing the defendant's right to a speedy trial).”
State Ex Rel. Rabe v. Ferris, 293 N.W.2d 151 (Wis. 1980). “*65 On the same day as the trial court entered its order consolidating the four counts, Rabe filed a demand for a speedy trial pursuant to sec. 971.10, Stats. 1 *66 Five days later, on September 18, 1979, the state filed a notice of appeal, a petition for leave to appeal the…”
Betterman v. Montana, 136 S. Ct. 1609 (2016). “3 (2016) ; Wis. Stat. § 971.10 (2011-2012); Wyo. Rule Crim.”
State v. Butler, 2014 WI App 4 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “11 (2011-12), 1 requires that a case be brought on for trial within 120 days of an inmate's request for prompt disposition, "subject to" Wis. Stat. § 971.10 , the Speedy Trial Statute.”
State v. Minerva Lopez, 2014 WI 11 (Wis. 2014). “Wis. Stat. § 971.10 (2)(a). Instead of insisting on a more expeditious trial date, the record reflects that Lopez seemed to prefer delay.”
State v. Lemay, 455 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. 1990). “This court has held that sec. 971.10, Stats., is merely a legislatively enacted measure to expedite trials.”
Hadley v. State, 225 N.W.2d 461 (Wis. 1975). “He also concluded, in response to the defendant's motion for dismissal for failure to grant a speedy trial, that the defendant had not received a speedy trial as required by sec. 971.10, Stats. In accordance with the provisions of that statute, he accorded the defendant the only…”
State v. Miller, 2003 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Miller makes three arguments against waiver: First, that he waived only his rights to a speedy trial under Wis. Stat. § 971.10 (2)(a) and not under the IAD; second, that the district attorney did not raise the issue of waiver of the IAD in the trial court and therefore cannot…”
State v. Williams, 2004 WI App 56 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.10 , the court authorized Williams' release on bail.”
State v. Richard H. Harrison, 2015 WI 5 (Wis. 2015). “The court of appeals and the parties offer different interpretations of the phrase "no authority to act" in Wis. Stat. § 971.10 (9). ¶ 82. The court of appeals determined that "when the substitution statute refers to a judge lacking the 'authority to act' it means the court can…”
— Wis. Stat. § 971.10(1) — 6 cases
State v. Martin, 470 N.W.2d 900 (Wis. 1991). “See generally sec. 971.10, Stats. (discussing the defendant's right to a speedy trial).”
State v. Hyndman, 488 N.W.2d 111 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Mullis, 260 N.W.2d 696 (Wis. 1978).
State v. Kit R. Stilwell (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Flowers v. State of Wisconsin (E.D. Wis. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.10(2) — 6 cases
State v. Adams, 558 N.W.2d 923 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “, had been violated because Adams was entitled to a trial within 120 days of his December 7, 1994 request for a speedy trial. 1 The court denied the motion.”
State Ex Rel. Rabe v. Ferris, 293 N.W.2d 151 (Wis. 1980). “*65 On the same day as the trial court entered its order consolidating the four counts, Rabe filed a demand for a speedy trial pursuant to sec. 971.10, Stats. 1 *66 Five days later, on September 18, 1979, the state filed a notice of appeal, a petition for leave to appeal the…”
State v. Luis A. Ramirez, 2024 WI App 28 (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Miller, 2003 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Miller makes three arguments against waiver: First, that he waived only his rights to a speedy trial under Wis. Stat. § 971.10 (2)(a) and not under the IAD; second, that the district attorney did not raise the issue of waiver of the IAD in the trial court and therefore cannot…”
State v. Robert L. Tatum (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.10(2)(a) — 12 cases
State v. Lemay, 455 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. 1990). “This court has held that sec. 971.10, Stats., is merely a legislatively enacted measure to expedite trials.”
State v. Davis, 2001 WI 136 (Wis. 2001). “11(2) that a criminal case against an accused shall be brought on for trial within the 120-day time period "subject to Wis. Stat. § 971.10 ," the "speedy trial" statute.”
State v. Miller, 2003 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Miller makes three arguments against waiver: First, that he waived only his rights to a speedy trial under Wis. Stat. § 971.10 (2)(a) and not under the IAD; second, that the district attorney did not raise the issue of waiver of the IAD in the trial court and therefore cannot…”
State v. Adams, 558 N.W.2d 923 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “, had been violated because Adams was entitled to a trial within 120 days of his December 7, 1994 request for a speedy trial. 1 The court denied the motion.”
State v. Jermichael J. Carroll (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.10(3) — 6 cases
State v. Davis, 2001 WI 136 (Wis. 2001). “11(2) that a criminal case against an accused shall be brought on for trial within the 120-day time period "subject to Wis. Stat. § 971.10 ," the "speedy trial" statute.”
State v. Adams, 558 N.W.2d 923 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “, had been violated because Adams was entitled to a trial within 120 days of his December 7, 1994 request for a speedy trial. 1 The court denied the motion.”
State Ex Rel. Rabe v. Ferris, 293 N.W.2d 151 (Wis. 1980). “*65 On the same day as the trial court entered its order consolidating the four counts, Rabe filed a demand for a speedy trial pursuant to sec. 971.10, Stats. 1 *66 Five days later, on September 18, 1979, the state filed a notice of appeal, a petition for leave to appeal the…”
State v. Butler, 2014 WI App 4 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “11 (2011-12), 1 requires that a case be brought on for trial within 120 days of an inmate's request for prompt disposition, "subject to" Wis. Stat. § 971.10 , the Speedy Trial Statute.”
State v. Cordero D. Coleman (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.10(3)(a) — 8 cases
State v. Butler, 2014 WI App 4 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “11 (2011-12), 1 requires that a case be brought on for trial within 120 days of an inmate's request for prompt disposition, "subject to" Wis. Stat. § 971.10 , the Speedy Trial Statute.”
State v. Joseph D. Posorske (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Benjamin Alan Gunn (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Thomas Eric Nelson, Jr. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Cordero D. Coleman (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.10(3)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Benjamin Alan Gunn (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Donald L. Gilmore (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.10(3)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Benjamin Alan Gunn (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Willie M. McBride (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.10(4) — 12 cases
State v. Jermichael J. Carroll (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Willie M. McBride (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Christopher S. Butler (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Aston Devon Brown (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Robert L. Tatum (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
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.