Wisconsin News Reporters’ Legal Handbook

8/3/2019 Wisconsin News Reporters Legal Handbook

1/80

WisconsinNewsReportersLegalHandbook

i

Pub lish ed by th e Sta te Bar of Wiscons ins

Media-Law Relations Comm ittee

in cooperation with th e Wisconsin Broa dcas ters Association

an d th e Wiscons in Newspa per Association

Fifth Edi t ion , J anu ary 2005

WisconsinWisconsinWisconsinWisconsinWisconsin

NewsReportersNewsReportersNewsReportersNewsReportersNewsReportersLegalHandbookLegalHandbookLegalHandbookLegalHandbookLegalHandbook

$5


2/80

Chapter1:WisconsinFairTrialandFreePressPrinciplesandGuidelines

ii

Fifth Edition

Copyright 200 5 Sta te Bar of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

All Right s Res erved

Printed in th e United Sta tes of Amer ica

To order a dditional copies of the Wisconsin New s Reporters Legal Handb ook,

please contact the State Bar of Wisconsin at (800) 728-7788, (608) 257-

3838. Each copy is $5 p lus s h ipping , handling , and applicable sales tax .

Media-LawRelationsCommitteeMedia-LawRelationsCommitteeMedia-LawRelationsCommitteeMedia-LawRelationsCommitteeMedia-LawRelationsCommittee

Hon. William F. Eich

Atty. April Rockstea d Ba rker

Atty. R. Alan Bates

Hon. Henry B. Bus leeJustice Neil Patrick Crooks

Atty . Lafayette LaJa un e Crum p

Mr. Robert Drechs el

Hon. William D. Dyke

Atty. Richa rd Alan Feth erston

Mr. Peter D. Fox

Atty . Ja mes Alan Fr iedman

Atty. J enn ifer Allema n Ha rper

Mr. Neil Heinen

Mr. Mark Hert zberg

Mr. Ed Hinsh aw

Kelly L. Centofanti, chairMr. J ohn Hoffland

Mr. Tim Kelley

Mr. J ohn Laabs

Atty. Maria S. LazarAtty. Leonar d Eu gene Martin

Mr. Je ff Mayers

Atty. David A. Melnick

Atty. Mitch ell S. Moser

Atty . J oseph J . Shutk in

Mr. Tom Still

Mr. Mark Stodd er

Ms. Ama nda K. Todd

Ms. Conn ie Walker

Hon. Maxine Aldridge White

J u stice J on P. Wilcox

Special thanks to Handbook Subcommittee members: Kelly L. Centofanti, Connie Walker,

Tony Ande rson, Amanda K. Todd, Mark Stodder, and Ja mes Friedm an.

Atty. Dan Rossmiller, staff liaison


3/80


iii

ContentsContentsContentsContentsContents

PrefacePrefacePrefacePrefacePreface .................................................................... v

ChapterOneChapterOneChapterOneChapterOneChapterOneWisconsin Fair Trial and Free Press Principles and

Guidelines

Pur pose .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 1Pr incip les to En su re Free Press an d Fair Tr ial . . . .. . .. . .. . . .1Guidelines for Criminal Proceedings . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .2Guidelines for Ju venile Proceedings . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .4Guidelines for Civil an d Adm inistra tive Proceedings . . . . . 4

ChapterTwoChapterTwoChapterTwoChapterTwoChapterTwoRules Governing Electronic Media and Stil l Photo-

graphy Coverage of Wisconsin Judicial Proceedings

Gene Pu rcells Tips for Electronic Newsgatherin g in th eWisconsin Court System .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . 5

Su prem e Court Rules . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .6Au thority of Trial J ud ge .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 6Media Coordinator . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 7Equ ipmen t an d Personn el . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 7Soun d a nd Light Criteria . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 7Location of Equipment an d Personnel . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . 8Court room Light Sou rces . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . 8Conferences . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .8Recesses . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 8Official Court Record .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .8Resolution of Disput es . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 8Prohibition of Photograph ing at Reques t of

Participan t . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . 8Inapplicability to Individuals; Use of Material for

Advertising Prohibited .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . 9J ud icial Gu idelines for Dealing with News Media

Inquiries . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 9Four Ru les for J ud ges . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . 10

ChapterThreeChapterThreeChapterThreeChapterThreeChapterThreeCourts and Court Procedures

Part A: Wiscons in S tate Courts ....................................... 14Crimina l Cas es . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 14Initial Appea ran ce an d Setting Bail . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . 15Preliminary Hear ing , Arraignm ent, and Substi tu t ion . . 16

Motions . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 17Cha nge of Plea . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . 18Trials: J ur y Trials an d Court Trials . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 18Trials: J ur y Selection .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . 19Trials . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 20Sentencing: The Sentencing Hear ing . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . 21Sent encing: Sent encing Options . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 22Competency and Menta l Disease or Defect . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . 24Postconviction Proceedings . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 25J ohn Doe Investigations . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . 25J uvenile Matters . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . 26Civil Cas es . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 28

Probat e . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 29

Mun icipa l Courts . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 29

Part B: Federal Courts in W isconsin ...............................3 0Crimina l Cas es . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 30Civil Cas es . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 33Ban kru ptcy an d Reorgan ization .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 35

En dn otes . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . 36

ChapterFourChapterFourChapterFourChapterFourChapterFourIssues of Access: Privilege, Open Records, OpenMeetings, Rights of Privacy, and DefamationThe J our na lists Privilege .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 37Sour ce of th e J our na lists Privilege .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 37Scope of th e Privilege .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . 37

Open Records . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . 38Procedu re for Obtainin g Records . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 38Types of Records Available . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . 38Woznicki Notice and Review Procedu res . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 38Records Subject to Woznicki Notice . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . 39Time Limits on the Woznicki Procedure . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. 39Other Statu tory Requirements . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . 40En forcemen t . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 40Open Meetings . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . 40Scope of the Open Meetings Law .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 41Procedu re to Close a Meeting .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . 41En forcemen t . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 42Access t o Courtroom s .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 42Cam eras in the Court room ... . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 42

Access to J uvenile Cour t Proceedings . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 42Newsgath ering Techn iques . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 43Recording a Teleph one Conversation .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 43Access to Private Proper ty . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . 43Right of Privacy ..................................... ..................... 44Defam ation .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 44Elemen ts of Defam ation .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . 44Who May Sue for Defam ation .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . 44Defens es . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 44Dam ages .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . 45En dn otes . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . 45

ChapterFiveChapterFiveChapterFiveChapterFiveChapterFiveInternet Res ources for Reporters

Archives . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 47Civics Educa tion Organizations . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 48Civics Edu cation Stan dards an d Repor ts . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . 48Contemporary Cour t a nd Cr iminal

J us tice Iss ues . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 49Continu ing Edu cation for Teachers . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 50Court s . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . 50Govern men t . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 51Law- a nd Governm ent- related Reference . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . 51Law-related Ed uca tion .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 53

ChapterSixChapterSixChapterSixChapterSixChapterSixGlossary of Common Legal Terms . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 57


4/80


5/80


v

PrefacePrefacePrefacePrefacePreface

For 25 years , Wisconsin cour ts h ave permitted cam eras a nd recording devices in m ost

proceedings . The cour t system, u nder th e leadership of the Wisconsin Su preme Cour t ,

ha s a s trong comm itment to pu blic access bu t recognizes that th e r ights of a f ree press

must be balanced against an individuals right to a fair tr ial. The State Bar of Wisconsins

Media-Law Relations Committee also is 25 years old. I ts mission is to increase under-

s tan ding and cooperation a mong the n ews media, judiciary , and Wisconsin lawyers .

The comm ittee fir s t published th is booklet in 197 9 to help jour na lis ts u nders ta nd

the judicial process a nd legal term inology. This 20 05 edit ion reflects the ma ny cha ngestha t h ave occurred in the law s ince 1995, including tru th - in-senten cing, the v ict ims

r ights law, s tatu tory chan ges to the Woznicki notice and review procedures , an d the n ew

juvenile code. Also provided here are tips from veteran court reporters and an update on

access to pu blic records .

The comm ittee owes a debt of grat i tude t o the judges an d at torneys who edited an d

updated portions of this booklet. We thank Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Daniel P.

Anderson , Wau kesha ; Circuit Cour t J udges Richard J . Sankovitz , Mary Kuh nm uen ch,

an d Timothy G. Dugan, Milwau kee County , an d J ohn R. Storck , Dodge County; U.S.

Dis tr ict Cour t Magis trat e Patr icia J . Gorence; Reserve Ju dges Thomas H. Bar lan d, Eau

Claire County , and Henry B. Buslee, Fond du Lac Coun ty; Attorneys J am es A. Fr iedman

an d J enn ifer L. Peterson of LaFollette Godfrey & Kahn , Madison; an d Media Coordina tor

Gene Pu rcell, La Crosse Regiona l Man ager, Wisconsin Pub lic Radio.This h an dbook does not an d can not add ress a l l of the s pecific legal problems pr in t

an d electronic media m ay encoun ter in repor t ing a n ews event. Becaus e the facts of every

situat ion greatly inf luen ce the pa r t icipan ts r ights , th is h an dbook is n ot a s ubs ti tu te for

sound legal advice. However, the Media-Law Relations Committee hopes this handbook

will serve as a reference guide for reporters covering Wisconsin courts and that the

handbook will f ind its way into newsroom libraries, onto copy desks, and into courtrooms

statewide.

The comm ittee is gratefu l to the State Bar of Wisconsin , t he Wisconsin Suprem e

Cour t , th e Wisconsin Newspaper Associat ion , and the Wisconsin Broadcasters Associa-

tion for su pporting th is project. The com mittee is esp ecially grat eful to th e Wisconsin

Newspa per Ass ociation Foun dat ion for fun ding pu blication of th is Fifth E dition.


6/80


vi


7/80

1


WisconsinFairTrialandWisconsinFairTrialandWisconsinFairTrialandWisconsinFairTrialandWisconsinFairTrialandFreePressPrinciplesFreePressPrinciplesFreePressPrinciplesFreePressPrinciplesFreePressPrinciplesandGuidelinesandGuidelinesandGuidelinesandGuidelinesandGuidelines

A committee of lawyers and journalists f irst drafted voluntary guidelines in 1969 to

bala nce th e right s of a free press with th e right of a crimina l defend an t to a fair tr ial. In

1979, th e State Bars th en n ew Media-Law Relations Comm ittee reviewed an d a men ded

these pr incip les , publish ing the revis ion as the Wisconsin New s Reporters Handbook.

PurposePurposePurposePurposePurposeThe r ight to a fair and prom pt tr ial and the r ight of freedom of the pres s are fun dam ental

l iber t ies gua rant eed by the s tate a nd federal consti tu t ions . These ba sic r ights m us t be

vigorously preserved and responsibly practiced according to the highest professional

s t a n d a r d s .

In virtu ally every case, a court s exercise of its resp onsibility (in cooperat ion with th ebar and law enforcement a gencies) with r espect to the par t ies seeking jus t ice in the

courtroom is entirely consistent with the news medias responsibility to inform the public

of the proceedings. However, it is important that the judiciary, bar, media, and law

enforcement agencies a ppreciate tha t in performing their respective duties they ma y

jeopard ize cons titut ional precept s of fair tr ial or of a free press .

To promote greater u nders ta nding of the consti tu t ional guara ntees of freedom of the

press and the right to a fair tr ial, the following principles and guidelines, submitted for

volunta ry complian ce, are a vailab le to Wisconsin judges , at torn eys , n ews media, a nd law

enforcement agencies .

These recomm ended pr incip les and guidelines ha ve been s ub mitted to ach ieve

un ders tan ding and cooperation among the m edia, the judiciary , the bar , and law

enforcement agencies in Wisconsin on a volunta ry basis . Therefore, they are n ot b indingon an yone, including those who may accept, approve, or endorse th em. In addit ion , th ey

are n ot to be app lied or u sed a gainst an yone, or to o therwise res tr ict r ights a f forded by

th e s ta te an d fed era l co n s t itu t ion s an d s ta tu tes .

PrinciplestoEnsureFreePressandFairTrialPrinciplestoEnsureFreePressandFairTrialPrinciplestoEnsureFreePressandFairTrialPrinciplestoEnsureFreePressandFairTrialPrinciplestoEnsureFreePressandFairTrial1) The judiciary, at torn eys , news media, an d law enforcement agencies s hould try to

preserve the pr incip le that a person su spected or accused of a cr ime is innocent u nti l

foun d guilty in a court on comp etent eviden ce fairly present ed. Parties in civil proceed-

ings also are enti t led to ha ve their r ights ad judicated in cour t according to due process .

Therighttoafairand

prompttrialandtheright

offreedomofthepress

arefundamentalliberties

guaranteedbythestate

andfederalconstitutions.


8/80


2

2) Access to inform ation in volving the adm inistra tion of ju stice in crim inal or civil

cas es an d th e right of defend an ts a nd p laintiffs to a fair tr ial, free of prejud icial inform a-

tion and conduct, a re both v ital r ights requir ing carefu l pro tection . With in their can ons of

eth ics , mem bers of the bar , judiciary , and law enforcement a gencies sh ould cooperate

with t he n ews media in repor t ing about th e adm inis trat ion of jus t ice. Cer tain media

proper t ies h ave codes of eth ics as well. J ourn al Commu nications ha s a wr it ten code, for

example.3) Lawyers , th e judiciary , news m edia, and law enforcement a gencies sh are th e

responsibility to assure that a tr ials outcome is not influenced by publicity or by public

sen t imen t .

4) The news media ha s a cons ti tu t ional and s t atu tory r ight , su bject only to rare

exceptions, to report ju dicial proceedings. However, all concer ned s hou ld cooperate with

the cour t to ensu re jury deliberations are ba sed only on evidence presen ted to the jury in

cour t . The news media s hould u se care in repor t ing por t ions of jury tr ials tha t tak e p lace

in th e jurys a bsence. Pub licizing cour t ru l ings m ade or evidence rejected in th e abs ence

of a jur y may cau se preju dice. A finding of prejud ice may resu lt in a mist rial.

5) The news media should strive for accuracy, balance, fairness, and objectivity.

Repor ters an d editors sh ould remember th at read ers , l is teners , a nd v iewers are potential

jurors. The news media should fairly report both sides of court proceedings. Reporting

only one side of a ca se m ay give th e pu blic a distorted view.

6) A court of law is int end ed to serve as a forum in which qu estions of guilt an d

innocence, r ights , an d l iab ili t ies a re determ ined u nder procedures for the a dmissib ili ty of

evidence and other established principles of law. These procedures provide fairness to the

par t ies an d perm it the cour t or a jury to reach a jus t verd ict . The jud ge is respons ib le for

seeing that th e cour t serves th is in tended pu rpose and t o provide t imely, accura te

informat ion cons is ten t with th e law, judicial and profess ional eth ics , an d th ese guide-

lines.

7) Law enforcemen t agencies a re resp onsible for providing

timely, accura te information consis ten t with th e law and th ese

guidelines.8) Lawyers s hou ld observe their code of professional resp on-

sibility and these guidelines. Lawyers should not use publicity to

promote a p osit ion in a pending case. Public prosecutors sh ould

not ta ke un fair advanta ge of their posit ion as impor tant sources of

information . However , these caveats shou ld not be cons trued to

limit a lawyers obligation to m ake available inform ation to which

the pub lic is en ti t led .

9) Jour nalis t ic, law enforcement, a nd legal train ing should

include ins tru ction in the cons ti tu t ional r ights to a fair t r ial and

freedom of the press.

GuidelinesforCriminalProceedingsGuidelinesforCriminalProceedingsGuidelinesforCriminalProceedingsGuidelinesforCriminalProceedingsGuidelinesforCriminalProceedings10) Subject to professional codes of ethics, there should be no

restrain t on m aking availab le to the pu blic , dur ing the investiga-

tion of a criminal matter, information:

a) conta ined in a pu blic record;

b) indicating an investigation is in pr ogress;

c) on th e genera l scope of th e investigation, including a

descr iption of the offens e an d, if perm itted by law, the iden tity of

th e victim;

Thenewsmediashould

striveforaccuracy,

balance,fairness,and

objectivity.


9/80

3


d) requesting ass is tan ce in ap prehend ing a su spect , or ass is tan ce in o ther

ma tters , and th e informa tion n ecessary for those request s ; and

e) warning th e pu blic of any dan gers .

11) Subject to profess ional codes of eth ics , there s hould be no res tra in t on m aking

available to the pu blic the following inform ation con cern ing a crimina l charge:

a) the defendants name, age, residence, occupation, place of employment,

ma r ital s tatus , and o th er relevan t nonprejudicial background informa tion;b) th e identity of the investigating an d arr esting officers or agencies an d th e

statu s of the investigation;

c) the circums tan ces surrou nding an ar res t , including t ime an d p lace of ar res t ,

ex is tence or absen ce of res is tance, pu rsu it , an d possess ion an d us e of weapons, and a

description of the physical evidence obtained at the time of arrest; for crimes against

proper ty , a repor t of the proper ty destroyed, dama ged, or s t o len a nd a general descr ip tion

of th e items recovered;

d) the n atu re, subs tan ce, or tex t of the cha rge, su ch as the complain t , indict-

men t, or information , or o ther ma tters of public record;

e) the s chedu ling or resu lt of an y s tep in th e judicial process; an d

f) a s ta tement th at the accu sed denies the charges .

12) The pub lication or broadcas t of cer tain types of inform ation m ay create d angers

of prejudice to the defense or prosecution in a criminal case. Law enforcement agencies

an d th e news m edia shou ld be aware of the da ngers of prejudice in pr etr ial d isclosu res

concerning these matters. Lawyers should review their code of professional responsibility

before releasin g the following informa tion u nt il th e sta rt of the tr ial or the d isposition of

the cas e without tr ial :

a) comm ents on th e accu seds ch aracter , reput at ion , or pr ior cr iminal record

(including arrests, indictments, or other charges of crime);

b) the pos sibility of a gu ilty plea to t he offens e cha rged or to a lesser offens e;

c) the exis tence or the conten ts of an y confess ion , adm ission , or s tatem ent g iven

by the accus ed , or a refus al or fai lure to ma ke a s ta tement ;

d) the performa nce or resu lts of an y exam ination or tes ts , or th e refus al of theaccus ed to submit to exam inations or tes ts ;

e) th e identity, testim ony, or credibility of a p rospective witnes s; an d

f) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the evidence, or the

mer its of the case.

13) Pr ior cr iminal cha rges a nd convictions or acquit tals are m atters of pub lic record ,

availab le through police agencies or cour t clerks . Law enforcement agencies m us t m ake

su ch informa tion a vailab le un der th e pu blic records law, but the p ublic d isclosure of it

ma y be highly prejud icial an d withou t significant benefit to the pu blics n eed to be

informed. When th ere has been a d isclosure of a pr ior ar res t or charge, the news m edia

an d law enforcement agencies h ave a sp ecial du ty to fu lly repor t the d isposit ion or s tatu s

of the ar res t or pr ior charge.

14) Law enforcement and cour t personn el cannot prevent th e photographing of defendan ts or su spects in pu blic p laces ou ts ide th e cour troom. However , Wisconsin

Supr eme Cour t ru les for u se of cameras an d recorders for n ews coverage of judicial

proceedings must be followed inside the courtroom. Law enforcement agencies should, if

possib le, ma ke availab le a su itab le, nonprejudicial photograph of a d efendan t or a person

in cust ody.

15) Informa tion a bout an un appreh ended su spect ma y be released by law enforce-

ment personnel when it serves a valid law enforcement or public safety function. Toward

tha t end , i t is proper to d isclose informat ion n ecessary to enlis t pub lic ass is tance in

appreh ending su spects , including photographs and records of pr ior offenses .

Informationaboutan

unapprehendedsuspect

maybereleasedbylaw

enforcementpersonnel

whenitservesavalid

lawenforcementor

publicsafetyfunction.


10/80

Chapter2:RulesGoverningElectronicMediaandStillPhotographyCoverageofWisconsinJudicialProceedings

4

GuidelinesforJuvenileProceedingsGuidelinesforJuvenileProceedingsGuidelinesforJuvenileProceedingsGuidelinesforJuvenileProceedingsGuidelinesforJuvenileProceedings16) The public ha s a r ight to know and t he n ews media ha s a r ight to repor t about cr imes

when children are v ict ims an d witnesses . However , the m edia should u se res train t a nd

prud ent judgment in repor t ing su ch informat ion .

17) When the n ews media a t tends proper ly closed sess ions of the juvenile cour t , i t

ma y not disclose nam es or identifying informa tion regarding th e juvenile or the juveniles

fam ily unless i t ha s obtained s uch informat ion f rom sources o ther t han law enforcement or

cour t records . The n ews media shou ld ma ke every ef for t to observe and fu lly repor t s uch

sessions and the courts disposition with regard for the juveniles rights and the public

in teres t in juvenile rehabili tat ion . When a juvenile is regarded as an adu lt und er cr iminal

law, the guidelines for crimina l proceedings apply.

18) Whenever juvenile records, maintained by the court or law enforcement agencies,

are reviewed by the news media, the identity of the juvenile cannot be reported if those

records a re th e only source of the juveniles iden tity.

Guidelines forCivilandAdministrativeProceedingsGuidelines forCivilandAdministrativeProceedingsGuidelines forCivilandAdministrativeProceedingsGuidelines forCivilandAdministrativeProceedingsGuidelines forCivilandAdministrativeProceedings19) Except where proh ibited by law, virtu ally all records in civil an d ad minist rat ive

proceedings , including p leadings , verd icts , orders , an d judgmen ts , a re pu blic recordsavailab le to the news m edia. Some docum ents , l ike deposit ions an d in ter rogator ies , ma y be

retained by the lawyers and not f iled . The m edia shou ld be mindful that repor t ing on a

deposition or written inter rogatories prior to tr ial may prejud ice one or m ore of th e liti-

gants . Prema turely repor t ing such m atters ma y be unfair if, after the pres entat ion of the

deposit ion or in ter rogatory ans wer in cour t , por t ions of these d ocumen ts a re not a dmitted

into evidence. Also, only one side of the issue may be presented in a deposition or answers

to interrogatories.

20) Pleadings are only allegations, and one-sided publication of such allegations may

prejudice one or more of the pa r t ies .

21) Adoption, mental illness, paternity, and certain family and juvenile court proceed-

ings , by their natu re an d by law, deserve special t reatmen t. Investigative repor ts in s uch

proceedings usually are confidential. However, in certain circumstances, the law gives the

news media d irect access to such records .

22) Personal an d f ina ncial data often mu st be revealed to the cour t . The pub lics n eed

to know such informat ion s hould be ba lanced against t he potential negative effects on th e

individu als involved.

23) Lawyers s hou ld review their code of professional res pons ibility before releasing th e

following inform ation (other th an a qu otation from or reference to pu blic records):

a) evidence regarding the occurrence or transaction involved;

b) the cha ract er, credibility, or crimina l record of a pa rty, witn ess, or p rospective

witness ;

c) physical evidence, the performan ce or resu lts of any examinations or tes ts , or

the refusal or fai lure of a par ty to su bmit to examinations or tes ts ;

d) an opin ion on th e mer its of the claims or defenses of a pa r ty ; and

e) an y other ma tter rea sona bly likely to interfere with a fair tr ial.

The news m edia sh ould be aware of the d an gers of prejudice in pretr ial d isclosu res

concerning these matters .

Pleadingsareonly

allegations,andone-

sidedpublicationof

suchallegationsmay

prejudiceoneormore

oftheparties.



11/80

5


DearReader,

Ih avebeen adis trictm ediacoordin ators in ce1989.Overth eyears ,Iveworked

with th em ediaan dth ecou rts on alotofh igh -profilecas es an dIliketoth in k

Ivelearn edafewth in gs .Ifyou reabroadcas torph otojou rn alis tcoverin gth ecou rts in Wis con s in ,

Iadvis eyou toreadth is ch apter.Ifyou can tbrin gyou rselftodoallofth at,atleas treadSCR61 .01 .

Au th orityofTrialJu dge.An d,ifyou can tfin dth etim etoreadallofth at,at

leas treadth efirs ts en ten ce.Fin ally,ifyou can ttearyou reyes awayfrom th is

paragraph ,h eres wh atits ays :Th eju dgecon trols th ecou rtroom .Notth em edia,n otth epu blic

,n otth ecou rth ou s ecu s todials taff,n otth eSh eriffs Departm en t.Th eju dge.Th atm ean s its agoodideatokn owth eru les

form ediaacces s th atth eju dgeh as impos edbeforeth etrialbegin s .Myexperien ceh as been th atju dges don tworkin avacu um an dm os twill

doth eirbes ttoaccommodatem ediain teres tin acas e.Bu tth eyals oare

balan cin gth ein teres tofth em ediawith th ein teres ts ofth epu blic,th evictim s ,

th eaccu s ed,an deverybodyels ein volvedin th ecas e.Mediacoordin ators s h ou ldm eetwith th em ediaan dcou rth ou s eofficials

wellah eadoftim etofin dou twh atth en eeds an dcon cern s ofallparties are ,

an dth en sh ou ldbepreparedtores olvecon flicts du rin gth etrial.Willyou

always geteveryth in gyou wan t?Nope.Igu aran teeth atwon th appen becau se

settin gupacces s forcompetin gm ediaalways in volves comprom is e.

Atth een dofth eday,its gettin gth es toryan din form ingth epu blicth at

m atters . Th eWis con s in Cou rtSys tem h as agoods ys tem in placeth atwillallow

you togetth es tory,n om atterwh atth em edium .Its in you rbes tin teres tas a

jou rn alis ttokn owwh ats expectedofyou s oyou can doyou rjoban dfu lfillyou r

obligation s toth epu blic(an dyou reditor).

Gen ePu rcellMediaCoordin ator,LaCros s eRegion alMan ager,Wis con s in Pu blicRadio

RulesGoverningElectronicMediaandRulesGoverningElectronicMediaandRulesGoverningElectronicMediaandRulesGoverningElectronicMediaandRulesGoverningElectronicMediaandStillPhotographyCoverageofStillPhotographyCoverageofStillPhotographyCoverageofStillPhotographyCoverageofStillPhotographyCoverageofWisconsinJudicialProceedingsWisconsinJudicialProceedingsWisconsinJudicialProceedingsWisconsinJudicialProceedingsWisconsinJudicialProceedings

GenePurcellsTipsforGenePurcellsTipsforGenePurcellsTipsforGenePurcellsTipsforGenePurcellsTipsfor

ElectronicNewsgatheringElectronicNewsgatheringElectronicNewsgatheringElectronicNewsgatheringElectronicNewsgathering

intheWisconsinCourtintheWisconsinCourtintheWisconsinCourtintheWisconsinCourtintheWisconsinCourt

SystemSystemSystemSystemSystem Fol low the rules . It isnt until you

find yours elf covering a tr ial in a noth er

state that you realize just how good

electronic journalists have it in

Wisconsin . Ou r cour t s ystem is

incredibly open to electronic cover-age, and tha t can lead to compla-

cency on the p ar t of journ alis ts .

Some journ alis ts mis taken ly believe

tha t access to cour ts by electronic

mean s an d cam era i s wi th o u t

limits.

For example, Ive dealt with

many surpr ised repor ters who

dema nd t o know why they cant

au tomatically set up a ca mera or

wire an elaborate soun d system

in th e cour troom without t el linganybody.

The reality is jour na lists

have a lot of access to court-

rooms in Wisconsin , bu t tha t

access comes with ru les . Those

rules can , an d do , cha nge. Its

your resp onsibility to lear n

what th ey are.


12/80


6

Learn the basics . Who is your m edia coordinator? What r ights do jour nalis ts h ave?

What power does the jud ge have? Wha t can an d cann ot be photograph ed? Where can you

conduct an in terview in th e cour thou se? Can you get in to a juvenile proceeding? What t ime

does the tr ial s tar t? Can you u se a f lash ? These are jus t a few of the ba sic questions t hat

you s hould an swer before you s tep in to th e cour thous e.

Be flexible. Cour troom ca ses th at a t tract a lot of media also lead to challenging

situat ions for the electronic journ alis ts tha t cover th em. This can be especial ly true if youre going to a cou rth ous e for the first t ime. Maybe there will be a m ult-box an d ma ybe

th ere wont. Maybe there will be an eas y way to plug into a s oun d system , or maybe youll

have to rig your own system. Or, perhaps the judge will rule only one microphone and one

cam era ca n be in t he cou rtroom. If youre going to be in a cou rth ous e wheth er for the first

or hun dredth t ime touch ba se with the local media coordinat or well in advance, becaus e

a new judge or a highly visible case could force a change in how business is normally

conducted .

Be sec uri ty consc i ous . This is becom ing a big deal in covering the cou rts . When I

first began covering courts as a reporter, a smile, wave, and notebook were usually all it

took to get me into a court room. Those days are long gone an d theyre not coming back,

par ticularly in h igh-profile court cas es. Dont get upset if a depu ty wants to look at your

tape deck or your cam era, an d dont expect to jum p th e l ine to get through s ecur i ty fas ter

tha n th e general public .

Be nice . Rememb er, were all profess ionals h ere. Genera lly, when th e med ia is

interes ted in a court cas e its st ress ful for everyone involved. The DA wan ts a su ccess ful

prosecution; the defendant wants to go free; the v ict ims wan t jus t ice; the m edia want

access; an d the judge needs to balan ce it a l l . When out-of- town m edia is at t racted , cour t

cases ca n become m ore s tressfu l as repor ters v ie for l imited seating an d access to the

court room. Before long, somebody pu lls ra nk . (Hey, I flew here in a h elicopter a nd I get into

th e courtr oom! Wait a s econd, I work for the local paper. I get a cam era int o the cou rtroom!)

Public quarrels among media during a high-profile case are a pretty good way for a

court hou se official to qu ickly resolve the situ ation b y denying everybody access to every-

th ing. Then youve got a real pr oblem. Never forget who can he lp you . Invariab ly th ere will be a conflict am ong the m edia

at th e cour thous e. Dif ferent deadlines , equipment, an d needs ca n foster d isagreement.

While the judge is always in ch arge, that doesnt m ean the jud ge should be th e fir s t poin t of

contact to resolve a problem.

On th e fir s t day of a m ajor tr ial, the p res id ing judge has better th ings to worry about

th an wheth er youve got an AC outlet for your video cam era. Tha ts when you go to the

media coordinator to solve the problem. Few judges Ive run into are opposed to media

coverage, but a repor ter barg ing in to their cham bers dem an ding to have their problem

solved ASAP will not m ake t hem ha ppy an d th ey probably will not s olve you r problem.

Media coordinators sh ould have contacts (and a p lan) already set up with th e judge and

other courthouse officials. Let the media coordinator handle your crisis so you can

concentrate on gett ing the s tory .

GuidelinesforWisconsinJudgesGuidelinesforWisconsinJudgesGuidelinesforWisconsinJudgesGuidelinesforWisconsinJudgesGuidelinesforWisconsinJudgesThese excerpts below are provided to give reporters an understanding of the guidelines

Wisconsin judges are required to follow in their day-to-day dealings with the news media.

Since Ju ly 1 , 1979, the Wisconsin Su preme Cour t has au thor ized cameras a nd

recorders in a l l Wisconsin cour trooms u nder Suprem e Cour t Rule (SCR) 61:

SCR 61.01. Authority of trial judge

1) The rules of conduct in this chapter do not limit or restrict the power, authority, or

Whilethejudgeis

alwaysincharge,that

doesntmeanthejudge

shouldbethefirstpoint

ofcontacttoresolvea

problem.


13/80

7


responsibility otherwise vested in the tr ial judge

to control the conduct of proceedings before the

jud ge. The a u thority of the t r ial judge over th e

inclusion or exclusion of the press or the public

at pa r t icu lar proceedings or dur ing the tes t imony

of par t icu lar witnesses is applicable to an y

person engaging in any activity authorized by thischapter .

2) In this chap ter, trial jud ge includes an y

jud icial officer who cond uct s a pu blic proceeding.

SCR 61 .02. Media coordinator

1) The Wisconsin freedom of inform ation coun cil

shall designate for each judicial administrative

dis tr ict a coordinator who s ha ll work with the

chief jud ge of th e judicial adm inistra tive district

an d the tr ial judge in a cour t proceeding in

implementing this chapter. Geographically large

judicial a dminis trat ive d is tr icts sha ll be su bdi-

v ided by agreement between the coun cil an d the

chief judge, with a coordinator des igna ted for

each subdis tr ict .

2) If possible, the tr ial jud ge sh all be given

notice, at leas t 3 days in advan ce, of the in ten tion of the media to br ing cameras or

recording equipmen t in to th e cour troom. In th e d iscret ion of the tr ial judge, th is n otice

ru le m ay be waived if cause for the waiver is dem onstra ted .

SCR 61.03. Equipment and personnel

1) Except as otherwise provided in sub. 2), 3 television cameras, each operated by one

person, and 3 s t i ll photographers , each u sing not more than 2 ca meras , are au t hor izedin any court proceeding. Priority consideration shall be extended to one of the 3 cam-

eras to televise an entire proceeding from beginning to end.

2) The tr ial judge may au thor ize addit ional cam eras or persons at th e request of

the m edia coordinat or or may limit the nu mber of camera s if circum stan ces permit the

increase or require th e l imitat ion .

3) One au dio system for rad io broadcast pu rposes is au thor ized in any cour t

proceeding . Audio p ickup for al l media p urposes sha ll be made t hrough any exis t ing

audio system in the court facility, if practical. If no suitable audio system exists in the

cour t facil ity , microphones and related wir ing shall be as un obtrusive as possib le.

4) The media coordin ator s ha ll be resp onsible for receiving reques ts t o engage in

the a ctivi t ies au thor ized by th is cha pter in a par t icu lar cour t proceeding and s hall

ma ke th e necessa ry al locations of au thor izations am ong those f il ing the requests . In th eabsen ce of advance media agreement on d ispu ted equipment or personn el issues , th e

trial judge shall exclude all audio or visual equipment from the proceeding.

SCR 61 .04 . Sound and l ight c riteria

Only audio or v isu al equipment which does not produ ce d is tracting light or sound ma y

be u sed t o cover a cou rt pr oceeding. Artificial lighting devices sh all not be u sed in

connection with an y audio or visual equipment . Only equipment approved by the tr ial

judge in advance of the cour t proceeding may be us ed du r ing the proceeding .

Onlyaudioorvisual

equipmentwhichdoes

notproducedistracting

lightorsoundmaybe

usedtocoveracourt

proceeding.


14/80


8

SCR 61 .05 . Locat ion of equipment and personnel

1) The tr ial judge sha ll designa te the location in the cour troom for th e cam era equ ipment

and operators . The tr ial judge sha ll res tr ict camera equ ipment a nd operators to area s

open to the pu blic , but th e camera equipment a nd operators s ha ll not b lock the v iew of

persons s eated in th e public area of the cour troom.

2) Cam era operators sh all occupy only the a rea au thor ized by the tr ial judge and

sha ll not move about the cour t room for p icture ta k ing purposes du r ing the cour tproceeding . Equipment a u th or ized by these ru les shall not be moved dur ing the

proceeding.

SCR 61 .06. Courtroom l ight sources

Modifications in t he lighting of a cou rt facility may be m ade on ly with th e app roval of th e

trial judge. Approval of other a ut horities ma y also be required.

SCR 61.07. Conferences

Au dio pickup, broa dcas t, or recording of a conference in a court facility between a n

attorn ey and cl ien t , co-couns el , or at torneys an d the tr ial judge held at th e bench is not

permitted .

SCR 61 .08 . Reces ses

Audio or visual equipment au thor ized by th is cha pter sh all not be operated du r ing a

recess in a cour t proceeding.

SCR 61.09. Official court record

Notwithst and ing any f ilm, v ideotape, photography or au dio reproduction m ade in a cour t

proceeding as a resu lt of this ch ap ter, the official court r ecord of the p roceeding is the

tra ns cript of th e original notes of the

cour t repor ter made in open cour t or

purs ua nt to an order of the cour t .

SCR 61 .10 . Resolut ion of disputes

A dispute as to the application of this

chapt er in a cour t proceeding may be

referred only to the ch ief judge of the

administrative district for resolution

as a n a dminis trat ive matter . An

appellate cour t s ha ll not exercise i ts

appellate or supervisory jurisdiction to

review at the requ est of any person or

organization seek ing to exercise a

privilege conferred by this chapter any

order or ru ling of a t r ial judge or chiefjudge under th is chapter .

SCR 61 .11 . Prohibi t ion of photo-

graphing at request of participant

1) A trial judge m ay for cau se pr ohibit

the au dio recording and t he ph oto-

graph ing of a pa rticipant with a film,

videotape or s t i l l cam era on the

jud ges own m otion or on the requ est

Individualjurorsshall

notbephotographed,

exceptininstancesin

whichajurororjurors

consent.


15/80

9


of a pa rticipan t in a cou rt proceedin g. In ca ses in volving the victims of crimes, inclu ding

sex cr imes, police informan ts , u ndercover agents , relocated witnesses and juveniles , a nd

in evidentiary su ppress ion h ear ings , d ivorce proceedings an d ca ses involv ing tra de

secrets , a presu mption of valid i ty at tends the requ ests ; th e tr ial judge sh all exercise a

broad discretion in deciding whether there is cause for prohibition. This list of requests

which enjoy the p resum ption is not exclus ive; the judge ma y in h is or her d iscret ion find

cause in comparable s i tuations .2) Indiv idua l jurors sha ll not be photographed, except in ins tan ces in which a juror

or jurors consent. In cou r trooms where ph otograph y is imposs ib le withou t including the

jury as pa r t of the u navoidable background, th e photography is permitted , bu t close-ups

that clearly identify jurors are prohibited. Trial judges shall enforce this subsection for

the purpose of providing maximum protection for jury anonymity.

SCR 61.12. Inapplicability to individuals; use of material for advertising prohibited

The pr ivileges gran ted by th is cha pter to p hotograph , televise an d record cour t proceed-

ings may be exercised only by persons or organizations which are pa r t of the news m edia.

Film, v ideotape, photograph y, and a udio reproductions sha ll not be u sed for u nrelated

adver t is ing purp oses .

. . .

While the Wisconsin S uprem e Cour t ha s n ot chan ged any of the or iginal ru les , some

jud ges rou tinely waive SCR 6 1.02(2):

(2) If possible, the trial judge shall be given notice, at least 3 days in advance, of the

intention of the m edia to bring came ras or recording equipme nt into the courtroom. In the

discretion of the trial judge, this notice rule may be waived if cause for the waiver is

demonstra ted .

These judges regard SCR 61.02(2) as an un necessa ry exercise an d rou tinely perm it

electronic equipment in th e cour troom withou t n otice. However , o ther judges requ ire at

leas t 72 h ours n otice of p lanned coverage so that an y questions or d ispu tes ma y be

address ed pr ior to a s chedu led proceeding .In a ny event, SCR 61.02(2) s t i l l s tan ds , an d the n ews media sh ould not be presu mp-

tuou s ab out th e procedures being fo llowed in a par t icu lar cour t .

JudicialGuidelinesforDealingwithNewsMediaInquiriesJudicialGuidelines forDealingwithNewsMediaInquiriesJudicialGuidelinesforDealingwithNewsMediaInquiriesJudicialGuidelines forDealingwithNewsMediaInquiriesJudicialGuidelinesforDealingwithNewsMediaInquiriesThe follow ing excerpts a re from an a ccepted statem ent by a na tional comm ittee of trial

judges chaired by Circuit Judge Thomas H. Barland , Eau Claire. Judge B arland revised

this m aterial in 2003 to reflect changes in usa ge and Wisconsins Code of Jud icial

Conduct.

Trial judges are s ubject to subs tan tial res train ts as to what they may sa y or do when

faced with n ews media inquir ies .

Can on 1 of th e American Bar Association (ABA) Code of J ud icial Condu ct a dm on-

ishes judges to observe h igh s tan dards of conduct s o the in tegr ity and independence of

the jud iciary ma y be preserved . Implici t in t he ABA canons are th e requirements tha t

judges both be a nd g ive the a ppearan ce of being impa r t ial , and th at th ey condu ct

them selves with th e d ignity and decorum expected of judges .

Canon 3 A(6) requires a jud ge to abstain f rom pu blic commen ts a bout a pending or

impending proceeding in a ny cour t . In addit ion , th is s tan dard of res train t app lies to cour t

personnel u nder t he judges d irection and contro l.

State judicial codes of conduct frequently are more explicit than the ABA canons in

detai ling res train ts upon a judges oppor tu nity to g ive public s tatemen ts and in terviews

to media representa t ives . In som e insta nces , s tate judicial codes of condu ct g ive greater

Trialjudgesaresubject

tosubstantialrestraints

astowhattheymaysayordowhenfacedwith

newsmediainquiries.


16/80


10

latitu de th an does ABA can on 3A(6) as to

what t he judge ma y say by way of a pu blic

s tat ement or commen t to the media. For

example, Wisconsins Supreme Court Rule

60.04(1)(j) states that a judge may not

while a jud icial proceedin g is pend ing or

impending in an y cour t , ma ke any pub liccommen t that m ay reasonably be expected

to af fect the ou tcome or impair the fairness

of the proceeding.

Even if the only specific jud icial

res train t is that no public comment be made

upon the m er its of the case so long as i t is

pending or impen ding, there may be su ch

un cer tain ty over what is m eant by a

pending or impending proceeding tha t th e

jud ge will not feel free to comm ent a t an y

time. Judges may decline comment because

of the pos sibility of post-conviction or p ost-

judgment motions , and subsequent appeals

with remands and directions. Impending is

not defined by th e ABA can ons or t he

Wisconsin Suprem e Cour t ru les . Impen d-

ing appear s to include ma tters tha t are

l ikely to be l it igated and cases completed on the tr ial level tha t m ay be a ppealed .

News media representatives do not always feel free to approach a judge for information

about a pend ing case. The m edia sometimes is in t imidated by the remoteness of the judge

or is uncomfortable about possibly interfering in the judicial process. The judge is not

always a vailab le and ma y not wish to , or be ab le to, talk with th e media a bout th e case.

Trial judges themselves are especially vulnerable to public criticism, as reported by themed ia. When it does occur, it is rare for th e bar, includin g lawyers involved in th e case, to

come to the judges defense. Often there is no one, other than the judge, who is in a position

to g ive a detai led a nd impar t ial explana tion of the ca se to th e news m edia. And the ju dge,

bound by the Code of J udicial Conduct, is eth ically res trained f rom ma king any commen t in

his or h er own defense.

Unless judicial cr it icism can b e met by an explan ation , public misu nders ta nding and

cynicism may grow. It is fundamental to our concept of a fair and public tr ial, as well as the

freedom of the press , that t he pu blic has a r ight to know wha t is going on in the cour ts a nd

why.

With th ese problems a nd res train ts in mind, t he following guidelines are s uggested as

an aid to tr ial judges in dea ling with th e news m edia:

FourRulesforJudgesFourRulesforJudgesFourRulesforJudgesFourRulesforJudgesFourRulesforJudges1) Every judge has a duty to explain judicial system procedures (or practices) to the public.

J udges sh ould seek oppor tunit ies to wr ite ar t icles and column s an d to g ive talks

concerning the judicial system to public groups, the news media, and to all levels of school

and college classes.

J udges sh ould encourage news media representat ives to inqu ire about ba ckgroun d

informat ion relat ing to the operation of the cour t system . While judges can not comm ent on

the m er its of a pen ding case, a judge may an d sh ould explain legal terms , concepts ,

Everyjudgehasaduty

toexplainjudicial

systemprocedures(or

practices)tothepublic.


17/80


18/80


12


19/80

13


CourtsandCourtProceduresCourtsandCourtProceduresCourtsandCourtProceduresCourtsandCourtProceduresCourtsandCourtProcedures

J ourn alis ts often a re sent out to cover th eir fir s t cour t cas es with l it t le or no formal

train ing on the practices and procedures of the cour t . Eventua lly they learn about the

cour t process , but those f ir s t exper iences can lead to some s urpr ises and p otential

miss teps . Simple misun ders tan dings can lead to er rors in repor t ing if journ alis ts fai l to

ask q u es t io n s wh en th ey a r e u n cer ta in ab o u t wh at h as o ccu r r ed in co u r t .

One veteran repor ter recalled dou bling a drun ken dr ivers senten ce for two separa te

incidents b y fai l ing to und ers tan d what th e judge meant when he sa id that th e dr iver

would serve h is two sent ences concu rrently rather th an consecutively.

Unders tan ding cour t procedures also will help repor ters a sk better qu estions , which

in tur n will help them n ot only to produce better s tor ies but also to pro tect their indepen -

den ce. Man y people from lawyers to investigators to litigant s have a lot at st ak e in thecour t process a nd jour nalis ts som etimes become un witt ing accomplices in th eir public

relat ions campaigns. Journalis ts who unders tand the cour t process are able to assess

the motives of their sources .

One journalist recalled receiving a tip from a litigant who said that the director of the

lawyer discipline system was, himself, under investigation for misconduct. Great story, if

i t were true. The tru th was th at th e t ips ter had a n a xe to gr ind: he h ad f iled a complain t

against h is at torn ey and t he complain t had been d ismissed . In an at tem pt to retal iate , he

then filed a complaint against the director tr iggering an automatic investigation and

tipped off the media. A less experienced reporter might have run with the story, destroy-

ing the directors reputation and calling into question the entire lawyer discipline system.

Inst ead , the repor ter kept t abs on the investigation tha t eventu ally showed the d irector

ha d not engaged in miscondu ct.This section of the Wisconsin New s Reporters Legal Handbookprovides a bas ic

introduction to the operation of Wisconsins state and federal courts. More important

tha n a ny of the sp ecifics in th is chapter is th is general suggestion: reporters who are

uns ure about court proceed ings, de finitions of legal terms , or how to explain court rulings

should a sk quest ions . Generally , judges a nd lawyers a re will ing to d iscuss these th ings .

Rules of conduct m ay l imit what judges can s ay about specific cases , but judges and

lawyers are us ua lly more tha n will ing to help , when a sked, with general informat ion t hat

can resu lt in m ore complete and a ccurate s t or ies .

Reporterswhoare

unsureaboutcourt

proceedings,definitions

oflegalterms,orhowto

explaincourtrulings

shouldaskquestions.


20/80

Chapter3:CourtsandCourtProcedures

14

PartA:WisconsinStateCourtsPartA:WisconsinStateCourtsPartA:WisconsinStateCourtsPartA:WisconsinStateCourtsPartA:WisconsinStateCourtsThe Wisconsin s tate cour t system consis ts of the circuit cour t , which h an dles most civ il and

cr imina l cases an d ha s bran ches in each of Wisconsins coun ty cour th ouses; th e cour t of

appeals , to which l i t igants h ave a r ight to app eal when they are un hap py with th e outcome

in the circuit cour t ; an d the su preme cour t , which chooses the cas es tha t i t will hear ,

han dling only those th at ra ise a question of what th e law is , or should be. The su premecour t is th e s tates law-developing cour t , a nd i t ta kes ab out one in every 10 cases th at come

before it , issu ing an average of 110 writ ten opin ions each September -Ju ne term . All s tat e

jud ges are elected; however, the govern or ma y fill vaca ncies by ap pointm ent. Those a p-

poin ted serve unti l a subs equent s pr ing election , when each a ppoin tee must r un for the

office.

Circuit an d cour t of appeals judges serve s taggered s ix-year terms . The s even su preme

court judges (called justices) serve staggered 10-year terms. The chief justice is the most

senior member of the cour t a nd can ass ign su preme cour t jus t ices , cour t of appeals judges ,

or circuit cour t judges to s i t temporar i ly on th e cour t of appeals or circuit cour ts a nywhere

in the s tat e when heavy caseloads require extra as s is tan ce.

In addit ion , the ch ief jus t ice can ass ign reserve judges where needed in ei ther circuit

cour ts or t he cour t of appea ls . A reserve judge is a jud ge who has left th e bench not bylosing an election, but b y retir ing from th e judiciary after serving at least four years . Thes e

judges can hear ca ses an ywhere in the s ta te .

State law perm its circuit judges to n am e lawyers in th eir coun ties to serve as judicial

cour t comm issioners on a fu ll- or par t - t ime ba sis . J udicial cour t comm issioners h ave

statu tory author i ty to handle man y legal ma tters at the prelimina ry s tages in al l t r ial cour t

b r an ch es .

Some commu nities choose to es tablish mu nicipal cour ts to h and le ord inance v io la-

t ions . As of May 2002, there were 224 mu nicipal cour ts operating arou nd th e s tate .

Municipal cour t judges a re not required to be

lawyers. Only two Wisconsin communities have

full-t ime m un icipal cour ts : Madison an d

Milwaukee.

No matt er wha t level of court , Wiscon sin

cour t p roceedings are almost always pub lic . This

openness s tems from sta te law (section 75 7.14 of

the Wisconsin Statu tes) an d from stat e and

federa l cour t ru lings. To close court proceedings,

a judge is required by both federal and s tat e law

to condu ct a public hear ing on the issue an d

then provide compelling reasons for closure

based on specific factual f indings.

Near ly al l cour t records a re pu blic an d

available to reporters.

CriminalCasesCriminalCasesCriminalCasesCriminalCasesCriminalCasesIn cr iminal cases , th e s tate prosecutes a person

for violating a crimina l law. The decision to

in it iate a cr iminal action and to accuse a person

of a p art icular crim e the cha rging decision

is ma de by the d is tr ict a t torney of the cou nty in

which th e crime was com mitted . (In a few types

of cases , th e at torn ey general ma y in it iate the

action.)

Circuitandcourtofappealsjudgesserve

staggeredsix-year

terms.


21/80

15


Crimes are generally divided between felonies and misdemeanors. A person con-

victed of a felony may be sentenced to prison (though prison is not the only sentencing

option see Sent encing, below). A misd emea nor con viction u su ally carries a jail

sentence of no more than a year in the county jail (more on the exceptions below in

Sentencing). Felony and misdemeanor crimes are further divided into different classes

of cr imes depending on the sever ity of the cr ime an d the m aximum possib le pun ishmen t.

For offens es comm itted after Feb. 1, 200 3, th ere are n ine class es of felonies (A thr ough I)an d th ree classes of misdemean ors (A throu gh C).

There is one significant civil proceeding that is treat ed ess ent ially like a crimina l

proceeding a peti t ion un der cha pter 980 of the s tatu tes to comm it a s exually v io lent

person to th e custody of the Sta te for contro l, care, and t reatm ent.

What i f the vict im and the DA disagree about the charge? In Wisconsin the

decis ion to proceed with a cr iminal complain t d oes not depen d on a v ict im press ing

charges or swearing out a complaint. In certain kinds of cases, for example, domestic

v io lence or in tra- fam ily sexual ass au lt cases , i t might ap pear th at t he v ict im m ay be

afraid to or un willing to cooperate with th e prosecu tor. Such a victim m ay go so far a s to

recant, or deny, th e al legations on which th e charge is bas ed . Such a tu rn of events

does not require a prosecutor to d ismiss the a ction , bu t i t raises the quest ion wheth er the

prosecutor can prove the case without the v ict ims cooperation . In som e cases charges

ha ve been proven s uccessfu lly withou t a cooperative v ict im, bas ed on the tes t imony of

other eyewitnesses, or of statements of the victim made in the wake of the alleged crime

(which ma y be used a t t r ial un der ev identiary ru les kn own a s th e excited u tteran ce and

present sense impress ion exceptions to the hears ay ru le).

Can the DA change t he c harge? The in it ial charging decis ion m ay chan ge as th e

case progresses . Cer tain k inds of condu ct might consti tu te m ore than one cr ime. For

example, depending on the circum stan ces , a shooting might be charged as at tem pted

hom icide, first or second d egree recklessly endan gering safety, first or second degree

reckless in jury , or n egligent h an dling of a d an gerous weapon. As a case pr oceeds, a nd as

more evidence comes t o l ight , i t may be necessa ry to chan ge the cha rge (am end th e

inform ation in th e case of a felony or am end t he com plaint in th e case of a misde-mean or). Fu r ther , n egotiat ing s tr ategy may inf luen ce th e ch arging decis ion . Some

prosecutors rou tinely charge the most ser ious offense th ey th ink they can prove, and ma y

be prepared to lower the ch arge if the defendan t p leads gu ilty . Other prosecutors

routinely charge a less ser ious offense, bu t warn the defenda nt a t the out set of the cas e

(usually in a letter that is not f iled with the court) that the information or complaint will

be am ended to ch arge a more ser ious ch arge if the case proceeds to tr ial .

InitialAppearanceandSettingBailInitialAppearanceandSettingBailInitialAppearanceandSettingBailInitialAppearanceandSettingBailInitialAppearanceandSettingBailDefenda nts mu st be br ought before a jud ge in open cour t with in a reas onable t ime. This

in it ial appeara nce is often th e morn ing after an ar res t , bu t i t is seldom longer than

48 h ours a fter an ar res t . At th is f ir s t a ppearan ce, the d is tr ict at torney usu ally gives the

judge and the a ccused a copy of the cr iminal complain t . The complain t , a legal docum ent

charging the accused with a crime and providing some details of the alleged offense, is a

pu blic record an d m ay provide the first reliable description of the prosecu tors view of th e

case. The complain t may su mm arize an y s tatement s ma de by the defendan t to the police.

A judge or cour t comm issioner pres ides over th is hear ing an d u su ally decides

whether th e accus ed sh ould be held in jai l o r released pen ding fur th er proceedings . The

pr incipal fun ction of bail is to ensu re tha t the d efendan t at t ends fur th er proceedings in

the case. In less ser ious cases , man y defendan ts are released with only a s ignatu re and a

promise to return to cour t without deposit ing an y cash or proper ty with th e cour t . These

personal recognizance bonds can be misleading becau se they s tat e a m onetary amou nt.

InWisconsinthe

decisiontoproceedwith

acriminalcomplaint

doesnotdependona

victimpressingcharges

orswearingouta

complaint.


22/80


16

It is not an am ount th at th e defendan t is required to post; ins tead i t is the a moun t of

money the defendant may be liable to pay if he or she violates the terms of the bond. (The

words bail and bond often are used interchangeably in court.)

In more ser ious cases , a cour t ma y require the defendant t o post cash or proper ty to

ensu re h is or her reappearan ce. Requir ing the defendan t to post bail cann ot be used to

pun ish the defendant . Nor may moneta ry bail be us ed to pro tect the comm un ity from the

accus ed; the cour t m ay use n onmoneta ry condit ions of bail to that end , su ch as order ingtha t the defendant not ha ve any contact with cer tain p laces or people, not ha ve weapons,

not dr ive, remain s ober, and so on . Sometimes defenda nts are required as a condit ion of

bail to remain at home while th e case is pending , where th ey are m onitored electronically ,

by telephone contact, or by in-person visits. In lieu of cash, judges may allow a defendant

to provide proper ty such as land , h ouses , or a u tom obiles . A judge may den y bail for up to

60 da ys in exceptionally ser ious ca ses in which a judge holds a hear ing an d f inds i t would

be dan gerous to release a person f rom jai l . The ba il decis ion ma y not necessa r i ly mean the

release of the defendant; a defendant who is alleged to have committed a crime while on

probation or pa ro le can be h eld without bail while th e Depar tm ent of Corrections decides

whether to revoke h is or her probation or paro le.

PreliminaryHearing,Arraignment,andSubstitutionPreliminaryHearing,Arraignment,andSubstitutionPreliminaryHearing,Arraignment,andSubstitutionPreliminaryHearing,Arraignment,andSubstitutionPreliminaryHearing,Arraignment,andSubstitutionA defendant charged with a felony is entitled to a preliminary hearing to determine whether

there is probable cause to believe a felony was committed within the jurisdiction of the

cour t . (A person cha rged with a m isdemean or is a lso enti t led to a proba ble cause determ i-

nat ion , bu t i t is m ade by a cour t comm issioner or judge at the in i t ial appeara nce bas ed

only on a reading of the complaint.) The preliminary hearing sets a rather low hurdle for

the Stat e, to ensu re only tha t un founded cr iminal charges are n ipped in the bud . The State

need s how only tha t i t is p laus ib le tha t th e defendan t comm itted a felony in order for the

court t o order the defenda nt t o stan d trial (or, in th e parla nce, to be bound over for tr ial).

The preliminary h ear ing is held quite promptly after th e in i t ial appea rance, u nless th e

accus ed agrees to a delay . A judge or cour t commissioner conducts the preliminary hear ing

without a jury . The prosecution pres ents witness es an d evidence. Prosecutors rarely putbefore the cour t al l the evidence or witnesses t hey ha ve. Defendan ts m ay cross-examine

witness es a nd ma y (but us ua lly do not) present evidence or tes t ify about their vers ion of

the ca se. A defendan t m ay agree to be boun d over for tr ial without a p rel imina ry hear ing

in other words, waive the preliminary hearing.

Except for some tes t imony in sexua l assau lt cases , preliminary hear ings mu st be

conducted in open cour t . In decid ing whether to close the h ear ing in a sexual ass au lt case,

the cour t balances t he defendants r ight to ha ving the p roceedings conducted in pu blic an d

the n ews medias r ight u nder th e Firs t Amendmen t to repor t such p roceedings against

evidence presented at a hear ing to es tablish tha t closu re is the only mean s availab le to

protect a vulnera ble victim or to protect t he fairnes s of the proceedings t o follow.

I f the defendant is bound over for tr ial, he or sh e mu st be a r raigned on the ch arges

stated in a document called an information. This proceeding usually is a formality; the

defendant typically pleads not guilty, or if he or she stands mute, the judge will enter a plea

of not guilty.

A defendan t ha s a r ight t o ask th at a d ifferent judge be ass igned to th e case. This r ight

of su bsti tu t ion may be exercised only once a nd i t mu st be exercised b efore the defendan t

is ar raigned or m akes an y motions . The defendant is not requ ired to give an y reason for

requesting sub sti tu t ion . The case m ay be reass igned random ly to another judge with in th e

judicial district. In some districts, the case will be reassigned to the judge in the district

with th e h ighest n um ber of previous reass ignmen ts (as a result of su bsti tu t ions , recus als ,

Inmoreseriouscases,

acourtmayrequire

thedefendanttopost

cashorpropertyto

ensurehisorher

reappearance.


23/80

17


or o ther reasons) , in order to keep caseloads am ong var ious bra nches of the cour t a s

equal as possib le.

What can be inferred from a defendants waiver of the preliminary hearing?

Most defendants waive their preliminary hearings. This pattern is probably a reflection of

tact ics , though, a nd shou ld not necessa r i ly be in terpreted as evidence of the defendant s

perception of the strength of the States evidence. Speaking tactically, a defendant has

little to gain from a preliminary hearing. Because the hurdle is so low, it is unlikely thatthe defendan t will defeat th e charge at the preliminary hear ing . Fur th er , the defendan t is

allowed very little latitude in questioning witnesses, so the hearing cannot be used like a

deposition in a civil proceeding simp ly to discover more abou t th e eviden ce. In a ddition, a

defendan t who deman ds a prel imina ry hear ing may aid the State by preserv ing a record

of the t es t imony of a witness who might not a ppear later a t t r ial or whose mem ory might

not be a s s trong at t r ial . Fina lly , a defendan t m ay believe tha t th e best s trategy for

resolving his or h er cas e favorably is to dem onst rat e conciliation from th e get-go.

MotionsMotionsMotionsMotionsMotionsJ udges us ua lly do not act in a case u nless someone as ks . Asking the judge to act is the

essence of a motion. Motions are usually, but not always, f iled in writing. Sometimes theyask the judge to make a legal decis ion based on u ndispu ted facts ; sometimes th e legal

implications are clear , but th e facts a re d isputed an d the judge will need to decide the

facts . Sometimes motions can be decided withou t hea r ing from th e lawyers or witnesses

in court; sometimes a lengthy evidentiary hearing will be needed.

Typical motions include:

Discovery motions , by which t he defense seeks to obtain informa tion t hat cann ot

be obtained without a court order (such as psychiatric, school, or juvenile records) or

information the State might decline to provide (for example, the defense might seek to

su bject the Sta tes ev idence to s cientific tes ts t hat the State believes would dam age the

evidence).

Motions to suppress evidence, by which the defense seeks to exclude from evidence

items or informa tion tha t m ight ha ve been obta ined from th e defendan t in v iolat ion of consti tu t ional or s ta tu t ory r ights ( for example, a m otion to s upp ress evidence seized

without a warra nt or a confess ion obtained in v io lat ion of Miranda ).

Pretrial motions in limin e to obtain r ulings on evidence before it is presen ted

dur ing th e tr ial (for example, a requ est by th e State to bar the d efense from refer r ing to

cer tain condu ct of a vict im un der th e Rape Shield law, or a requ est of the State or the

defense to per mit th e us e of eviden ce of other a cts other wron gdoing by a pers on th at

might demons trate a motive or knowledge that is at issu e in th e tr ial).

Refus al hear ings in OWI cases , in which a cour t decides whether a pers ons refusal

to subm it to a tes t of h is or her breath or b lood was lawful an d whether th e jury can be

inform ed of the d efend an ts refusa l.

A defenda nts requ est th at t he cour t al low a new a ttorney to take over the cas e, or,

in cases in which th e defenda nt is indigent, appoin t a d ifferent a t torney to take over the

case. In decid ing su ch m otions , cour ts have in m ind th e defendan ts consti tu t ional r ight

to an effective at torney . Cour ts are m indful , too , that su ch m otions increas ingly are

ass er ted for pu rposes of delay .

Cha nge of venu e motions . These motions a re out of the ord inary , except in cases

given m ore than pa ss ing at ten tion by the news media. In su ch cases , i t is not u nu su al for

the defense to ask the cour t to order a tr ial moved to an other county or to br ing in jurors

from a nother coun ty to hear the ca se. Before moving a tr ial or empan ell ing o ther jurors ,

the cour t m us t be sat isfied that pretr ial pub lici ty ha s perm eated the coun ty , tha t the

Sometimesmotionscan

bedecidedwithout

hearingfromthelawyers

orwitnessesincourt;

sometimesalengthy

evidentiaryhearingwill

beneeded.


24/80


25/80

19


even a sma ll percentage tran slates in to a su fficient n um ber of tr ials to keep tr ial cour ts

bus y trying cases on a rou tine basis .

A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a tr ial before a jury of 12 persons.

Wisconsins brief experiment with six-person juries in criminal cases ended when the

Suprem e Cour t foun d that pra ctice un consti tu t ional .

Sometimes, al though not of ten , a defendan t decides for ta ct ical reasons to waive h is

or her right to a ju ry trial and p erm it the jud ge to render th e verdict. A trial over whichth e judge presides an d ren ders t he verdict is called a court tr ial or bench trial. Amon g

the reas ons why a defenda nt m ight prefer a cour t t r ial are: The defenda nt h as a lengthy

record, an d m ight p erceive tha t a ju dge will more ca refully weigh th at record in ju dging

the defendan ts credib ili ty than a jury might. Or the defendan ts condu ct, whether lawful

or not , m ight seem shocking or offensive or engender less sympa thy in t he a verage juror

tha n i t would in a judge exper ienced in cr iminal casework . Or the evidence m ight cas t the

defendan t or impor tan t witnesses in cer tain s tereotypes to which a jud ge, again g iven

deeper fam iliar ity with cr imina l cases , m ay be imm un e. Or the defense s trategy might

depend on a more particularized or a novel application of the law to the facts. Or a

defendan t m ight n ot have to pay as m uch to h is or her lawyer for a bench tr ial . There are

other reasons as well.

Trials:JurySelectionTrials:JurySelectionTrials:JurySelectionTrials:JurySelectionTrials:JurySelectionThe jury is selected from a panel of prospective jurors. The panel is selected randomly

from a jury pool which , in tu rn , has been s elected ran domly from a jury lis t compiled

from voting records, drivers licens e records, a nd s imilar sour ces. The size of th e pan el is

determined by the judge, and u su ally conta ins jus t en ough prospective jurors so that i f

an y jur ors ar e dismiss ed for cau se there will still be enough ju rors to choose from after

peremptory strikes (also known as peremptory challenges) are used.

Dur ing jury selection , th e judge an d th e lawyers qu estion prospective jurors to

determine if any sh ould be excused becau se they cann ot be open-minded a nd fair -

minded a bout th e case, for exam ple, becaus e they may know persons involved in the cas e

or have opin ions or exper iences tha t would make them less than impar t ial . Such personsma y be dism issed for cau se. After

an y jurors h ave been d ism issed for

cau se, the pa r t ies are al lowed to take

tur ns , us ing peremptory s tr ikes ,

removing a predetermined n um ber of

na mes f rom the jury panel . The

nu mber of s tr ikes depends on th e

offense, th e nu mber of par t ies , an d

the nu mber of al terna te jurors on the

pan el . The par t ies al ternate s tr ik ing

jurors un ti l the required nu mber of

jurors remain at leas t 12 , p lus an y

alternat es a judge might require

(al ternates a re a precaution against

ha ving too few ju rors to comp lete the

case in the event a juror might

become ill or unavailable during the

trial). The lawyers n eed n ot give a

reason for their perempt ory s tr ikes .

(However, if a party suspects that the

Ifthecasecannotbe

resolvedbydismissalor

achangeofplea,itmust

betried.


26/80


20

other par ty has us ed i ts peremp tory s tr ikes s o lely on th e bas is of race, gender , or age, the

par ty may be required , und er the Batson case, to of fer a reason independent of su ch

considerations for its strikes.)

Sometimes judges and lawyers question potential jurors individually in the judges

cham bers , to a fford a juror pr ivacy abou t a sens it ive m atter , or to prevent o ther prospective

jurors from hea r ing wha t a p ar t icu lar juror ha s to sa y . Repor ters have the r ight to be

present dur ing th is qu estioning and to repor t on potential jurors ans wers .In some cases , a judge might decide that th e safety of the jurors or th e independence

of their deliberations might be compromised if their identities were made public. Ordering

anon ymous jur ies is a way to reass ure jurors of their safety and to inoculate th eir delibera-

t ions a nd th eir verd ict from the d is tra ction an d un due inf luen ce that m ight occur in a h igh

profile case. Anonymous juries have been approved in certain cases in Wisconsin; however,

the p ractice remains controvers ial and i t is cu rrently being reviewed by the U.S. Suprem e

Cour t .

What i f the jurors kno w too much ? A common m yth about jury selection is tha t

lawyers an d judges seek to r id jur ies of jurors who are too sma r t or know an yth ing at al l

about the law, the par t ies , or the p lace where the cr ime is al leged to ha ve occurred . In fact ,

knowledge of su ch t h ings does n ot au tomatically d isqualify a juror as long as the judge is

sat isf ied th at t he juror is s incerely impar t ial about the ca se an d will decide th e case s tr ict ly

on the evidence an d not on u ncomm on knowledge that th e juror may possess . I t is only

when a reasona ble person in the jurors posit ion cou ld not set a s ide an opin ion despite the

best of in tent ions to do so that the cour t mu st excuse t he juror for cau se. As a resu lt , it is

not u nh eard of for judges, prosecu tors, defense lawyers, police officers, an d other s with

similar exper ience to have served as jurors in cr iminal cases .

TrialsTrialsTrialsTrialsTrialsA tr ial in a cr imina l case proceeds along a rout ine path : After th e jury has been s elected ,

the judge gives prel iminary ins tru ctions outl in ing the th ings th e Stat e mu st p rove before

th e defend an t ma y be foun d guilty (th e element s of th e offens e), remind ing the jurors of

the d efendan ts pres um ption of innocence, and defin ing legal terms s uch as reasona bledoubt. Then the lawyers make opening statements to the jury, giving a preview of their

posit ions a nd what t hey expect the evidence to sh ow. (The defendan t m ay choose to delay

his or h er s ta tement un ti l the p rosecution ha s f in ished offer ing evidence. ) Then the

prosecutor pu ts t he Sta tes witnesses and evidence before the jury . The judge wil l ma ke a

determina tion in each cas e about wheth er jurors are en ti t led to take notes or ask

questions .

At the close of the States case, the defense routinely moves to have the case dis-

missed; the m otion m ay appear formalis t ic, but i t is n ecessary to preserve cer tain app ellate

r ights , an d in s ome cases i t may prove successfu l if the St ate h as not provided evidence of

al l the elements of the ch arge. When the judge decides such a m otion , the judge is not

us urping th e jurys du ty to decide th e case. The judge ma y d ismiss th e case only if,

considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, there is no credible evidence

upon which a rea sonab le jury could rely to find th e defendan t guil ty. This is a nother low

hu rdle to weed out the ra re case tha t does n ot jus t ify a jury tr ial . (A s imilar m otion an d

ruling mu st be m ade a fter th e close of al l the evidence. )

Unless the case is d ismissed , the defense th en present s witness es and evidence.

Because th e defendan t is presum ed innocent an d consti tu t ionally enti t led to remain s i len t ,

the d efendan t i

Documents

Wisconsin News Reporters’ Legal Handbook