Skip to content
Bills from the 2025–26 session

Assembly Bill 458

Admissibility of expert witness testimony

Topics: Court: Procedure, Witness

Stopped before the full Assembly voted

The recommended passing it, but the full Assembly never voted on it. The last day for votes this session was Mar 19, 2026. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Sep 26, 2025

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Assembly never voted on it.

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Mar 23, 2026: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

Embed this on your site

Paste this code into your page. The card shows the latest record each time it loads. Preview the card

The same bill was also filed in the Senate as SB 459. That version became law.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

This bill updates the current statutory rule of evidence relating to testimony by experts to conform with recent changes made to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 intended to clarify the court’s gatekeeping role with respect to expert testimony. Current law parallels FRE 702 prior to its amendment, allowing the testimony of an expert witness if the witness’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact at issue in the case, but limiting the testimony of an expert witness to testimony that is based on sufficient facts or data, that is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that is based on the witness applying those principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Similar to the changes made to FRE 702, the bill confirms that the proponent of the testimony is required to demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the witness’s testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, that it is the product of reliable principles and methods, and, finally, that the witness’s opinion reflects a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Who's behind it

12 representatives are its ⁠. All 12 are Republicans.

4 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 16 names

Authors (12)

Signed on in support (4)

How lawmakers voted

There was one vote on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Judiciary vote to recommend it

Passed, 8 to 0 · Jan 14, 2026

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage recommended by Committee on Judiciary, Ayes 8, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Mar 23, 2026

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Jan 14, 2026

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  3. Jan 14, 2026

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 8 to 0.

  4. Nov 5, 2025

    The committee held a public hearing.

  5. Sep 26, 2025

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.

  6. Sep 26, 2025

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Sep 26, 2025 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives B. Jacobson, Kreibich, Moses, Murphy, Mursau, O'Connor, Penterman, Piwowarczyk, Tittl, VanderMeer, Wittke and Duchow; cosponsored by Senators Wanggaard, Feyen, Marklein and Wimberger

  2. Sep 26, 2025 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Judiciary

  3. Nov 5, 2025 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  4. Jan 8, 2026 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  5. Jan 14, 2026 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by Committee on Judiciary, Ayes 8, Noes 0

  6. Jan 14, 2026 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  7. Jan 20, 2026 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 1-22-2026 by Committee on Rules

  8. Jan 22, 2026 · Assembly

    Laid on the table

  9. Mar 23, 2026 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote