Bill > AB447

Introduced Session

Under current law, a circuit court generally may allow the use of videoconferencing technology during pretrial, trial or fact-finding, or post-trial proceedings, subject to certain technical standards and criteria. However, current law provides that a defendant in a criminal case (defendant) or a respondent in certain civil actions that could result in loss of liberty or fundamental rights with respect to the respondent[s children (respondent) is entitled to be physically present in the courtroom during his or her trial and at his or her sentencing or other dispositional hearing. Currently, if a defendant or respondent objects to the use of videoconferencing technology regarding a proceeding that the defendant or respondent has a right to attend in person, the court must sustain the objection. If a defendant or respondent objects to the use of videoconferencing technology regarding any other proceeding, current law allows the court to exercise its discretion in determining the objection. This bill establishes a new exception to provide that, for objections by a respondent relating to the testimony of an expert witness by videoconference technology in matters relating to certain admissions, placements, or commitments, including for involuntary commitment and protective placement proceedings, even if a respondent is entitled to attend the proceeding in person, the court may exercise its discretion in determining the objection.

AI Summary

Committee Categories

Barbara Dittrich (R)*,  Benjamin Franklin (R)*,  Rick Gundrum (R)*,  Brent Jacobson (R)*,  Dean Kaufert (R)*,  Joel Kitchens (R)*,  Dan Knodl (R)*,  Dave Maxey (R)*,  Paul Melotik (R)*,  Dave Murphy (R)*,  Jeff Mursau (R)*,  Amanda Nedweski (R)*,  Todd Novak (R)*,  Jerry O'Connor (R)*,  Jim Piwowarczyk (R)*,  Lisa Subeck (D)*,  Travis Tranel (R)*,  Chuck Wichgers (R)*,  Jesse James (R),  Howard Marklein (R), 

Laid on the table (on 01/22/2026)

Official Document