Section 885.56 - Criteria for exercise of court's discretion(1) In determining in a particular case whether to permit the use of videoconferencing technology and the manner of proceeding with videoconferencing, the circuit court may consider one or more of the following criteria: (a) Whether any undue surprise or prejudice would result.(b) Whether the proponent of the use of videoconferencing technology has been unable, after a diligent effort, to procure the physical presence of a witness.(c) The convenience of the parties and the proposed witness, and the cost of producing the witness in person in relation to the importance of the offered testimony.(d) Whether the procedure would allow for full and effective cross-examination, especially when the cross-examination would involve documents or other exhibits.(e) The importance of the witness being personally present in the courtroom where the dignity, solemnity, and decorum of the surroundings will impress upon the witness the duty to testify truthfully.(f) Whether a physical liberty or other fundamental interest is at stake in the proceeding.(g) Whether the court is satisfied that it can sufficiently know and control the proceedings at the remote location so as to effectively extend the courtroom to the remote location.(h) Whether the participation of an individual from a remote location presents the person at the remote location in a diminished or distorted sense such that it negatively reflects upon the individual at the remote location to persons present in the courtroom.(i) Whether the use of videoconferencing diminishes or detracts from the dignity, solemnity, and formality of the proceeding so as to undermine the integrity, fairness, and effectiveness of the proceeding.(j) Whether the person proposed to appear by videoconferencing presents a significant security risk to transport and present personally in the courtroom.(k) Waivers and stipulations of the parties offered pursuant to s. 885.62.(l) Any other factors that the court may in each individual case determine to be relevant.(2) The denial of the use of videoconferencing technology is not appealable.Sup. Ct. Order No. 07-12, 2008 WI 37, 305 Wis. 2d xli.