Wis. Stat. § 968.02
A judge abused his discretion in barring the public from a hearing under sub. (3). State ex rel. Newspapers v. Circuit Court, 124 Wis. 2d 499, 370 N.W.2d 209 (1985). A judge's order under sub. (3) is not appealable. Gavcus v. Maroney, 127 Wis. 2d 69, 377 N.W.2d 201 (Ct. App. 1985). Sub. (3) does not give a trial court authority to order a district attorney to file different or additional charges than those already brought. Unnamed Petitioner v. Walworth Circuit Ct., 157 Wis. 2d 157, 458 N.W.2d 575 (Ct. App. 1990). Sub. (3) does not confer upon the person who is the subject of a proposed prosecution the right to participate in any way or to obtain reconsideration of the ultimate decision reached. A defendant named in a complaint issued pursuant to sub. (3) has the same opportunity to challenge in circuit court the legal and factual sufficiency of that complaint as a defendant named in a complaint issued pursuant to sub. (1). Kalal v. Dane County, 2004 WI 58, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110, 02-2490. A refusal to issue a complaint under sub. (3) may be proven directly or circumstantially, by inferences reasonably drawn from words and conduct. The refusal can be open and explicit or indirect and inferred. Inaction alone will ordinarily not support an inference of a refusal to prosecute. Kalal v. Dane County, 2004 WI 58, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110, 02-2490. Forms similar to the uniform traffic citation that are used as complaints to initiate criminal prosecutions in certain misdemeanor cases are sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court but any conviction that results from their use in the manner described in the opinion is null and void; this section and ss. 968.02, 968.04, 971.01, 971.04, 971.05, and 971.08 are discussed. 63 Atty. Gen. 540. Judicial scrutiny of prosecutorial discretion in decision not to file complaint. Becker. 71 MLR 749 (1988).