Jury; civil rules applicable.
Jury trial; waiver.
Exercise of challenges.
Incriminating testimony compelled; immunity.
Immunity; use standard.
Hostile witness in criminal cases.
Evidence and practice; civil rules applicable.
Sequestration of jurors.
Statements before sentencing.
Ch. 972 Cross-reference
See definitions in s. 967.02
Jury; civil rules applicable.
The summoning of jurors, the selection and qualifications of the jury, the challenge of jurors for cause and the duty of the court in charging the jury and giving instructions and discharging the jury when unable to agree shall be the same in criminal as in civil actions, except that s. 805.08 (3)
shall not apply.
Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585
, 784 (1975); Sup. Ct. Order No. 96-08
, 207 Wis. 2d xv (1997).
Wis. J. I.—Criminal, 520, the Allen charge, as to the duty of a jury to try to reach agreement, is proper. Kelley v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 641
, 187 N.W.2d 810
Jury trial; waiver. 972.02(1)(1)
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, criminal cases shall be tried by a jury selected as prescribed in s. 805.08
, unless the defendant waives a jury in writing or by statement in open court or under s. 967.08 (2) (b)
, on the record, with the approval of the court and the consent of the state.
At any time before the verdict in a felony case, the parties may stipulate in writing or by statement in open court, on the record, with the approval of the court, that the jury shall consist of any number less than 12. If the case is a misdemeanor case, the jury shall consist of 6 persons.
In a case tried without a jury the court shall make a general finding and may in addition find the facts specially.
No member of the grand jury which found the indictment shall be a juror for the trial of the indictment.
Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 784
; Sup. Ct. Order, 141 Wis. 2d xiii (1987); 1995 a. 427
; Sup. Ct. Order No. 96-08
, 207 Wis. 2d xv (1997).
Judicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (1) is amended to reflect that waiver of trial by jury may be made by telephone upon the defendant's request, unless good cause to the contrary is shown. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1988]
Judicial Council Note, 1996: This proposal changes ``drawn" to "selected" whenever a statute refers to choosing jurors or prospective jurors, for statutory uniformity. [Re Order effective 7-1-97]
A defendant cannot claim that his waiver of a jury, where the record is silent as to acceptance by the court and prosecution, made his subsequent jury trial invalid. Spiller v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 372
, 182 N.W.2d 242
If defendant demanded a jury trial he cannot be held to have waived it by participating in a trial to the court. He can raise this question for the first time on appeal. State v. Cleveland, 50 Wis. 2d 666
, 184 N.W.2d 899
A record demonstrating the defendant's willingness and intent to waive a jury must be established before accepting a waiver. Krueger v. State, 84 Wis. 2d 272
, 267 N.W.2d 602
The defense's participation in a misdemeanor court trial, without objection, did not constitute waiver of a jury trial. State v. Moore, 97 Wis. 2d 669
, 294 N.W.2d 551
(Ct. App. 1980).
The court abused its discretion in discharging an ill juror during deliberations without making any record as to the circumstances of the discharge and without counsel being present. Unless the defendant consents, it is reversible error for the court to substitute an alternate juror for a regular juror after jury deliberations have begun. State v. Lehman, 108 Wis. 2d 291
, 321 N.W.2d 212
A trial court may not deny an accused's motion to withdraw a jury waiver without showing that granting the withdrawal would substantially delay or impede the cause of justice. State v. Cloud, 133 Wis. 2d 58
, 393 N.W.2d 129
(Ct. App. 1986).
A waiver of a jury trial must be made by an affirmative action of the defendant; neither counsel nor the court may waive it on the defendant's behalf. If the defendant has not personally waived the right, the proper remedy is a new trial rather than a postconviction hearing. State v. Livingston, 159 Wis. 2d 561
, 464 N.W.2d 839
The verdict of a 13 member jury panel agreed to by the defense and prosecution was valid. State v. Ledger, 175 Wis. 2d 116
, 499 N.W.2d 199
(Ct. App. 1993).
When there are grounds to believe the jury in a criminal case needs protection, the trial court may take reasonable steps to protect the identity of potential jurors. Preventing references on the record to juror's names, employment and addresses while providing the defense with copies of the juror questionnaires during voir dire was within the court's discretion. State v. Britt, 203 Wis. 2d 25
, 553 N.W.2d 528
(Ct. App. 1995).
The defendant was not automatically entitled to a new trial when, in waiving the right to a jury trial, the trial court did not advise that a jury verdict must be unanimous. The appropriate remedy is through a postconviction motion that, as a threshold requirement, must contain an allegation that the defendant did not know or understand the rights at issue. State v. Grant, 230 Wis. 2d 90
, 601 N.W.2d 8
(Ct. App. 1999).
Waiver of jury in Wisconsin. 1971 WLR 626.
Each side is entitled to only 4 peremptory challenges except as otherwise provided in this section. When the crime charged is punishable by life imprisonment, the state is entitled to 6 peremptory challenges and the defendant is entitled to 6 peremptory challenges. If there is more than one defendant, the court shall divide the challenges as equally as practicable among them; and if their defenses are adverse and the court is satisfied that the protection of their rights so requires, the court may allow the defendants additional challenges. If the crime is punishable by life imprisonment, the total peremptory challenges allowed the defense shall not exceed 12 if there are only 2 defendants and 18 if there are more than 2 defendants; in other felony cases 6 challenges if there are only 2 defendants and 9 challenges if there are more than 2. In misdemeanor cases, the state is entitled to 3 peremptory challenges and the defendant is entitled to 3 peremptory challenges, except that if there are 2 defendants, the court shall allow the defense 4 peremptory challenges, and if there are more than 2 defendants, the court shall allow the defense 6 peremptory challenges. Each side shall be allowed one additional peremptory challenge if additional jurors are to be selected under s. 972.04 (1)
History: 1983 a. 226
; 1995 a. 427
; Sup. Ct. Order No. 96-08
, 207 Wis. 2d xv (1997).
Judicial Council Note, 1983: This section is amended by allowing one additional peremptory challenge when additional jurors are to be impaneled. This approximates the right of each side under prior s. 972.05 to one additional peremptory challenge for each alternate juror. Since abolition of the concept of "alternate" jurors permits the additional peremptory challenge to be made to any member of the panel, only one additional challenge is permitted. [Bill 320-S]
Judicial Council Note, 1996: This proposal changes ``impaneled" to ``selected" whenever a statute refers to choosing jurors or prospective jurors, for statutory uniformity. [Re Order effective 7-1-97.]
A defendant has a heavy burden to show unlawful discrimination in a prosecutor's peremptory challenges. State v. Grady, 93 Wis. 2d 1
, 286 N.W.2d 607
(Ct. App. 1979).
A party defending against an allegation that peremptory strikes were used for discriminatory reasons must offer something more than a bald statement that other nonprohibited factors were considered. There must be a showing that there is a nexus between legitimate factors and the juror who was struck. State v. Jagadowsky, 209 Wis. 2d 577
, 563 N.W.2d 188
(Ct. App. 1997).
A potential juror who expressed that she could not be fair and impartial should have been removed for cause under s. 805.08 (1). Failure to remove the juror forced the defendant to strike the potential juror which resulted in the defendant being denied one of the peremptory strikes guaranteed under s. 972.03 and required a new trial. State v. Ramos, 211 Wis. 2d 12
, 564 N.W.2d 328
An appellate court should overturn a circuit court's determination that a prospective juror can be impartial only where the juror's bias is manifest; not where there is a reasonable suspicion of bias. The test for manifest bias is stated. State v. Ferron, 219 Wis. 2d 481
, 579 N.W.2d 654
(1998). But see State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d 700
, 596 N.W.2d 770
(1999) for a review of this case to apply new terminology regarding juror bias.
Veteran jurors cannot be removed solely on the basis of having served as jurors in a similar case, but must be shown to have exhibited bias in the case they are called to hear. It was error for the trial court not to strike 5 potential jurors who had served on a prior case in which the same defense was used when the jurors expressed that they would not give serious consideration to the defense. State v. Kiernan, 227 Wis. 2d 736
, 596 N.W.2d 760
Ramos does not entitle a defendant to a new trial when both the prosecution and defense are given an equal number of peremptory strikes, even if the number is less than provided for by statute. State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758
, 596 N.W.2d 749
There is no automatic disqualification of potential jurors who have been convicted of crimes. The erroneous dismissal of a prospective juror for cause does not constitute an additional peremptory challenge for the moving party; it is an error subject to harmless error analysis. State v. Mendoza, 227 Wis. 2d 838
, 596 N.W.2d 736
(Ct. App. 1998).
Peremptory challenges may not be exercised, and therefore not changed, after the parties have accepted the jury, even if the jury has not yet been sworn. State v. Nantelle, 2000 WI App 110, 235 Wis. 2d 91
, 612 N.W.2d 356
Equal protection precludes a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge to exclude potential jurors solely by reason of race; a criminal defendant can raise the equal protection claim that jurors were excluded because of their race, whether or not there is racial identity between the defendant and the excluded jurors. Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400
, 113 L. Ed. 2d 411
(1991). See also Basten v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79
, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69
(1986) for a process for evaluating a claim that race was the sole basis for a peremptory challenge.
Gender-based peremptory strikes are barred by the equal protection clause. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. 511 U.S. 127
, 128 L. Ed. 2d 89
Exercise of challenges. 972.04(1)
The number of jurors selected shall be prescribed in s. 756.06 (2) (a)
, whichever is applicable, unless a lesser number has been stipulated and approved under s. 972.02 (2)
or the court orders that additional jurors be selected. That number, plus the number of peremptory challenges available to all the parties, shall be called initially and maintained in the jury box by calling others to replace jurors excused for cause until all jurors have been examined. The parties shall thereupon exercise in their order, the state beginning, the peremptory challenges available to them, and if any party declines to challenge, the challenge shall be made by the clerk by lot.
A party may waive in advance any or all of its peremptory challenges and the number of jurors called pursuant to sub. (1)
shall be reduced by this number.