Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 971.22 (2026)
Change of place of trial
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
971.22(1)(1) The defendant may move for a change of the place of trial on the ground that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county. The motion shall be made at arraignment, but it may be made thereafter for cause.
971.22(2)(2) The motion shall be in writing and supported by affidavit which shall state evidentiary facts showing the nature of the prejudice alleged. The district attorney may file counter affidavits.
971.22(3)(3) If the court determines that there exists in the county where the action is pending such prejudice that a fair trial cannot be had, it shall order that the trial be held in any county where an impartial trial can be had. Only one change may be granted under this subsection. The judge who orders the change in the place of trial shall preside at the trial. Preliminary matters prior to trial may be conducted in either county at the discretion of the court. The judge shall determine where the defendant, if he or she is in custody, shall be held and where the record shall be kept. If the criteria under s. 971.225 (1) (a) to (c) exist, the court may proceed under s. 971.225 (2).
971.22 AnnotationRelevant factors as to whether a change of venue should have been granted include: 1) the inflammatory nature of publicity concerning the crime; 2) the degree to which adverse publicity permeated the area from which the jury would be drawn; 3) the timing and specificity of the publicity; 4) the degree of care exercised; 5) the amount of difficulty encountered in selecting the jury panel; 6) the extent to which the jurors were familiar with the publicity; 7) the defendant’s use of challenges available in voir dire; 8) the state’s participation in adverse publicity; 9) the severity of the offense charged; and 10) the verdict returned. State v. Hebard, 50 Wis. 2d 408, 184 N.W.2d 156 (1971).
971.22 AnnotationWhile actual prejudice need not be shown, there must be a showing of a reasonable probability of prejudice inherent in the situation. Gibson v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 110, 197 N.W.2d 813 (1972).
971.22 AnnotationThe timing, specificity, inflammatory nature, and degree of permeation of publicity are extremely important in determining the likelihood of prejudice in the community. State ex rel. Hussong v. Froelich, 62 Wis. 2d 577, 215 N.W.2d 390 (1974).
971.22 AnnotationWhen news stories concerning the crime were accurate informational articles of a nature that would not cause prejudice and four months had elapsed between the publication of the news stories and the trial, it tended to indicate little or no prejudice against the defendant. Jones v. State, 66 Wis. 2d 105, 223 N.W.2d 889 (1974).
971.22 AnnotationThere was no abuse of discretion in not changing the venue of a prosecution for first-degree murder when the transcript of the hearing on the issuance of the arrest warrant was sealed, the preliminary examination and other hearings were closed to the public and press, the police and prosecutor refused to divulge any facts to the public and press, and press reports were generally free from the details of incriminating evidence, straightforward, and not incendiary. State v. Dean, 67 Wis. 2d 513, 227 N.W.2d 712 (1975).
971.22 AnnotationOnly the defendant may waive the right to venue where the crime was committed. State v. Mendoza, 80 Wis. 2d 122, 258 N.W.2d 260 (1977).
971.22 AnnotationThe right to venue where the crime occurred is not a fundamental right of a criminal defendant. The decision to move for a change of venue is a tactical judgment delegated to counsel that does not require the defendant’s personal concurrence. State v. Hereford, 224 Wis. 2d 605, 592 N.W.2d 247 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1270.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: State v. Bangert, 389 N.W.2d 12 (Wis. 1986).
State v. Bangert, 389 N.W.2d 12 (Wis. 1986). “On December 8, 1982, after he was charged with first-degree murder and endangering safety, Banger moved the circuit court pursuant to sec. 971.22, Stats., to change the venue of his trial.”
State v. Mendoza, 258 N.W.2d 260 (Wis. 1977). “Two weeks later, with permission, the defendant filed written objections on the additional grounds, inter alia, that the sua sponte order was in violation of sec. 971.22, Stats., and that "the order denies defendant the right of being tried in the vicinage of the offense as…”
State v. Oswald, 2000 WI App 2 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Normally, the proper venue for a criminal trial is the county where the crime was committed.”
Groppi v. Wisconsin, 400 U.S. 505 (1971). “" Wis. Stat. § 971.22 , effective July 1, 1970, now permits a change of venue in all criminal cases.”
State v. Mendoza, 596 N.W.2d 736 (Wis. 1999). “11 See Wis. Stat. § 971.22 (1). 12 The phrase "without judicial scrutiny," lifted from the Swain case, is no longer valid.”
State v. Messelt, 504 N.W.2d 362 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “Because the defendant could individually voir dire any juror, the court believed a fair and impartial jury could be selected from Jackson County.”
State v. Hereford, 592 N.W.2d 247 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “See §§ 971.22 and 971.225, STATS. It is possible under Wisconsin statutes to change one, but not the other.”
State Ex Rel. Hussong v. Froelich, 215 N.W.2d 890 (Wis. 1974). “All facts upon which Hussong’s conviction lie are consistent with each other and exclude any reasonable probability of innocence.”
State v. Burks, 2004 WI App 14 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “at 35 ; see Wis. Stat. § 971.22 (change of venue), Wis.”
Est. of Burgess v. Peterson, 537 N.W.2d 115 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “(discretion to exclude relevant evidence to prevent prejudice); § 971.22, Stats, (discretion to change location of trial to prevent prejudice).”
State v. Julian Dewayne Collazo (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “In February 2020, Collazo filed a motion for change of venue for the retrial, alleging that a fair trial could not be held in Rock County, the county in which it was alleged the crime occurred, because of prior media coverage of the case.”
State v. Mastella L. Jackson (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 971.22(3); or selection of a jury from another county, WIS.”
— Wis. Stat. § 971.22(1) — 4 cases
State v. Oswald, 2000 WI App 2 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Normally, the proper venue for a criminal trial is the county where the crime was committed.”
State v. Hereford, 592 N.W.2d 247 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “See §§ 971.22 and 971.225, STATS. It is possible under Wisconsin statutes to change one, but not the other.”
State v. Messelt, 504 N.W.2d 362 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “Because the defendant could individually voir dire any juror, the court believed a fair and impartial jury could be selected from Jackson County.”
State v. Kreuscher, 690 N.W.2d 25 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.22(3) — 3 cases
State v. Bangert, 389 N.W.2d 12 (Wis. 1986). “On December 8, 1982, after he was charged with first-degree murder and endangering safety, Banger moved the circuit court pursuant to sec. 971.22, Stats., to change the venue of his trial.”
State v. Messelt, 504 N.W.2d 362 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “Because the defendant could individually voir dire any juror, the court believed a fair and impartial jury could be selected from Jackson County.”
State v. Mastella L. Jackson (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 971.22(3); or selection of a jury from another county, WIS.”
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.