Here's an interesting item:
"Typically, a secrecy order covers questions asked, answers given, transcripts of the proceedings, exhibits produced during the proceedings, or other matters observed or heard in the secret session at a John Doe proceeding," according to an article on the Wisconsin Bar Association website by Marcus J. Berghahn, a criminal defense attorney with experience in such cases.Huh. "Typically"?
[I]f the [John Doe] proceeding is secret, the record of the proceeding and the testimony taken shall not be open to inspection by anyone except the district attorney ...Call me a strict constructionist/judicial conservative but I don't see anything in there about "exhibits produced during the proceedings."
Exhibits aren't testimony. Similarly it's been argued that 'typically' the Wis. Supreme Court appoints a three-judge panel to hear judicial discipline cases. That practice is unauthorized by State statute as well.
Indeed, it's directly contrary to State statutes. Not to come over all philosophical, but what is the point of having statutes? Would it work better if we wrote them in a language unfamiliar to English speakers?