Jurors may first decide whether Gregory Juedes killed his father and then separately consider his legal responsibility for the alleged act.
APPLETON, Wis. — The jury expected to hear the murder case against Gregory Juedes early next year may be asked to reach one verdict and then immediately begin another inquiry — first whether he intentionally killed his father and then whether a mental disease or defect relieved him of criminal responsibility.
Juedes, 47, has pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect to first-degree intentional homicide in the Nov. 24, 2024, shooting death of his father, Daniel Juedes Sr., 74. Wisconsin’s two-stage process means the mental responsibility claim does not replace the ordinary trial on guilt. Prosecutors must first prove that Juedes committed the charged offense. If the jury finds him not guilty, the proceedings end on that count. If jurors convict him, they can then move into a separate phase examining the mental disease or defect defense. The trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 8, 2027, and local court reporting says as much as two weeks has been reserved.
That structure helps explain why the case has remained pending for so long despite a criminal complaint that describes eyewitness evidence, extensive forensic findings, a police pursuit and statements allegedly made by Juedes after his arrest. The mental health issue required additional evaluation beyond an ordinary homicide prosecution. Juedes formally pursued a psychiatric examination, and a report was completed by June 2025. At a hearing that month, attorneys did not publicly reveal its conclusions. Instead, they asked for additional time to review the assessment and consider how the defense would proceed.
The plea commonly described as an insanity defense has a narrower legal function than the everyday use of that term may suggest. According to local coverage of Juedes’ case, the second phase would focus on whether he had a mental disease or defect that left him unable to distinguish right from wrong or unable to conform his conduct to legal requirements. A diagnosis by itself would not necessarily satisfy that standard. The defense would have to establish the legal criteria during the responsibility stage if the jury first found Juedes guilty of killing his father.
The consequences of the second phase could be substantial. If jurors convict Juedes and reject his mental disease or defect claim, he faces the criminal punishment associated with first-degree intentional homicide, which can include life imprisonment. If the jury accepts the mental responsibility defense, local reporting says he would be subject to placement in a secure psychiatric facility rather than being sentenced in the same manner as a conventional homicide conviction. Neither outcome has been determined, and the case remains unresolved.
Before jurors can reach any mental health issue, however, they will confront the prosecution’s account of what happened inside Daniel Juedes’ Appleton home. A neighbor called police at about 7:35 a.m. on the morning of the shooting to report a disturbance involving a weapon. The criminal complaint says the neighbor saw a man arrive in a white BMW carrying a handgun. The witness told investigators that the man kicked in the front door and entered. Yelling followed, and the neighbor then heard 10 to 12 shots in rapid succession.
Officers responding to the house found Daniel Juedes inside a bedroom. He was pronounced dead despite lifesaving efforts described by Appleton police. The subsequent autopsy documented 15 gunshot wound tracks, according to the complaint, while investigators recovered 14 spent cartridge casings from the residence. Police also reported bullet damage to the bedroom. Those forensic findings describe the severity of the attack but do not independently decide who fired the shots or the shooter’s legal state of mind. Those elements must be established through admissible evidence at trial.
The prosecution’s narrative does not stop with the gunfire. The witness reported that the person seen entering the home left in the BMW and then returned to the property for a brief period before driving away again. Investigators later identified Gregory Juedes as Daniel’s son and connected him to the vehicle, according to the complaint. When an officer spotted the BMW and attempted a traffic stop, the driver allegedly activated hazard lights but did not pull over. Police said a chase followed onto area highways.
Officers ultimately stopped the BMW with a pursuit intervention maneuver near Kaukauna. Authorities say Juedes ran from the vehicle and resisted officers who caught him. The criminal complaint also alleges that he tried to reach toward a lieutenant’s weapon during the struggle. Juedes was eventually subdued and taken for medical care. Prosecutors charged him separately with fleeing or eluding an officer and resisting or obstructing an officer. Those charges will also have to be proved and are distinct from the mental responsibility question surrounding the homicide count.
It was during medical transport that the complaint says Juedes made some of the prosecution’s most notable statements. Police described the remarks as spontaneous and not prompted by questioning. Juedes allegedly said he believed he had hit his father with every round and referred to firing an additional shot. He also allegedly said he returned to the residence afterward to check on Daniel Juedes and ensure he was “down for the count.” Because the comments are described in a charging document, the jury will have to consider them only if the judge permits the relevant evidence and the state establishes the necessary foundation.
Police said a Canik TP9SFx handgun was recovered from Juedes’ vehicle. The complaint also details ammunition evidence from the home. The public reports reviewed do not provide every forensic comparison that could be offered at trial, nor do they disclose the full psychiatric report prepared for the defense issue. That divide means the coming proceedings could involve two very different bodies of evidence: the first dealing with the shooting and Juedes’ conduct before and after it, and the second focusing on expert testimony and his mental condition at the time.
The public record is also incomplete on motive. Reports examining the eight-page criminal complaint say it does not identify a reason Juedes allegedly killed his father. That makes the mental disease or defect claim particularly important but does not permit an assumption that mental illness caused the shooting. A legal defense based on mental responsibility requires evidence, just as the prosecution’s allegation of intentional homicide requires proof. The court process is designed to keep those questions separate rather than allowing one unanswered issue to substitute for another.
Pretrial proceedings show that attorneys explored whether the case could end without a jury deciding those questions. In March, local reporting said plea discussions were continuing while a lengthy trial was reserved in case negotiations failed. No deal resolved the prosecution. The case was first scheduled for a March trial and later moved to August. The August setting was postponed after the assigned judge retired, according to later reporting, and a new trial date was established in September. The latest reliable local reports identify Feb. 8 as the start date.
The lengthy schedule also reflects the unusual demands of a possible bifurcated proceeding. Prosecutors may need witnesses who can describe the crime scene, the autopsy, physical evidence, alleged flight and statements after arrest. The defense may challenge that evidence during the guilt phase without necessarily relying on the same material it would offer during the mental responsibility stage. If a second phase becomes necessary, psychiatric experts and other evidence concerning Juedes’ condition could become central. The same jury would then shift from deciding what happened to deciding a legally different question about responsibility.
Juedes has remained subject to a $2 million bond set after prosecutors filed charges in December 2024. The bond amount and continued detention do not determine the merits of either his not guilty plea or his mental disease or defect plea. He retains the presumption of innocence on the homicide and related charges. Likewise, the existence of a psychiatric evaluation should not be taken as proof that the legal mental responsibility defense will succeed. Its contents have not been fully disclosed in the public reporting reviewed.
The February trial therefore carries two possible stages but no predetermined outcome. Jurors will first be asked to evaluate the state’s evidence about Daniel Juedes’ death and Gregory Juedes’ alleged actions. Only a guilty verdict would open the second inquiry into mental disease or defect. As of Oct. 21, both pleas remain part of the case and no publicly reported agreement has eliminated the need for a jury trial.
Author note: Last updated October 21, 2026.