Prosecutors have cited an eyewitness account physical evidence and statements allegedly made by Gregory Juedes after police captured him.
APPLETON, Wis. — The murder case against Gregory Juedes is built publicly around three separate trails of evidence: what a neighbor says happened outside his father’s home, what police and an autopsy found afterward, and what Juedes allegedly said once officers had taken him into custody.
Those strands will face their most important test when Juedes, 47, goes before a jury on a charge of first-degree intentional homicide in the death of his father, Daniel Juedes Sr., 74. Juedes has pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. He is also charged with fleeing or eluding an officer and resisting or obstructing an officer. A two-week trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 8, 2027, after earlier settings were postponed. The criminal complaint summarizes the prosecution’s allegations but is not proof of guilt, and the defense will be able to challenge the state’s evidence in court.
The eyewitness portion of the case begins outside the Appleton residence on Nov. 24, 2024. A neighbor called authorities at about 7:35 a.m. to report a disturbance involving a weapon. According to the complaint, the witness saw a white BMW arrive and watched a man emerge holding a handgun. The man approached the house and allegedly kicked through the front door. The witness could not see everything that happened inside, but reported hearing yelling followed by 10 to 12 gunshots in roughly five seconds. That account gives prosecutors a timeline independent of statements attributed to Juedes.
The witness also described what happened immediately after the gunfire. According to investigators, the man left the residence and returned to the white BMW. The witness noticed the handgun and told police about the position of its slide, describing what he believed suggested that the firearm had been emptied. That interpretation is the witness’s observation rather than a formal forensic conclusion. More important to the timeline, the neighbor said the BMW left the property and then returned. The man allegedly went back into the house briefly before coming out quickly and driving away again.
That return to the residence later appeared to line up with a statement police say Juedes made after his arrest. The complaint alleges that while being taken to a hospital, Juedes said without prompting that he had returned to check on his father and make sure he was “down for the count.” The charging document also attributes another statement to him in which he said he thought he had hit his father with every round and referred to one additional shot. Those words are central allegations in the complaint, but the defense will have the opportunity to contest their context, admissibility and significance.
Between the witness account and those alleged statements lies the physical evidence from the home. Responding officers entered the residence and found Daniel Juedes on the floor of a bedroom. Police said they detected the odor associated with recent gunfire. Investigators documented bullet damage and recovered 14 spent cartridge casings, according to the complaint. An autopsy later identified 15 gunshot wound tracks and recovered three intact bullets from the body, local reporting says. The evidence establishes the violent nature of Daniel Juedes’ death, but prosecutors still must connect the crime legally and factually to the defendant.
Police say another physical item was recovered after the pursuit: a Canik TP9SFx handgun found in Gregory Juedes’ vehicle. Public reports based on the complaint identify the ammunition recovered at the residence as 9 mm but do not detail every ballistic conclusion investigators may have reached. That distinction matters because a charging document generally presents facts supporting probable cause rather than the entire evidentiary file assembled for trial. Jurors may ultimately hear testimony or laboratory analysis that was not included in the early public narrative, while some information in investigative records may never be admitted.
The police pursuit supplies a separate chain connecting the Appleton scene to Juedes’ arrest. After the neighbor provided information about the BMW, an officer spotted a matching vehicle whose driver also matched the available description. The officer activated emergency equipment. The complaint says the driver switched on his hazard lights but continued traveling rather than pulling over. Authorities say the vehicle entered the highway and led officers on a high-speed pursuit. The state may cite that alleged conduct as part of the chronology, but the jury will decide what inferences, if any, can fairly be drawn from it.
The chase ended when an officer used a pursuit intervention maneuver. Police said Juedes then ran from the BMW and resisted officers who caught him. The complaint alleges that he tried to reach for a lieutenant’s weapon while being subdued. Local coverage says police used a Taser before taking him into custody. Those events resulted in separate fleeing and resisting charges. They also explain why Juedes was transported for medical treatment, creating the setting in which authorities say he later made the unsolicited remarks included in the homicide complaint.
There is another important feature of the state’s case that public documents do not explain: motive. Multiple reports reviewing the eight-page complaint say it gives no reason for why Juedes allegedly would have killed his father. The state is not necessarily required to provide a simple narrative motive to obtain a conviction if it can prove every required element of first-degree intentional homicide. Still, motive often helps jurors make sense of evidence. The absence of one from the public complaint leaves open the possibility that more context will emerge through testimony or exhibits when the case is tried.
The defense has also added evidence of a different kind to the case through Juedes’ plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. A psychiatric evaluation was completed in 2025, but the substantive findings were not publicly disclosed in the court coverage reviewed. The defense does not receive a favorable verdict merely by raising a mental health issue. Under the procedure described in local reporting, jurors must first decide the ordinary criminal case before they consider whether a mental disease or defect affected Juedes’ legal responsibility.
That sequencing could make the February trial unusually complex. In the first phase, the prosecution can rely on evidence aimed at proving identity, conduct and intent: the neighbor’s observations, forensic findings, the alleged return to the residence, the pursuit, the firearm and Juedes’ purported statements. The defense can cross-examine those witnesses and offer its own evidence or arguments. Only if jurors find Juedes guilty would the trial enter a second stage where psychiatric testimony and evidence about his mental condition could take on direct legal importance.
The case has already gone through a series of scheduling changes. Juedes was formally charged in December 2024 and a judge set a $2 million bond. A psychiatric report was completed the following year. By early 2026, attorneys were still discussing a possible plea agreement while trial dates were being reserved. A March setting gave way to an August plan for as many as 10 trial days. That setting was later postponed, with subsequent local reports citing the retirement of the assigned judge. In September, the case was placed on the calendar for a two-week trial beginning in February 2027.
One published account later listed Feb. 7 as the trial date and Jan. 22 as a pretrial hearing. More recent local reporting from WBAY and WTAQ identifies Feb. 8 as the trial start, and Feb. 7, 2027, is a Sunday. The available reporting therefore supports Feb. 8 as the more reliable start date. The difference illustrates why procedural details can shift during a long-running criminal case and why the latest local court coverage matters when describing what happens next.
The homicide charge carries the most serious consequences. If Juedes is found guilty of first-degree intentional homicide and does not prevail in the separate mental responsibility stage, local reporting says he faces life imprisonment. If he is found guilty but succeeds on the mental disease or defect defense, he could be committed to a secure psychiatric facility instead. Those possible outcomes remain contingent on jury findings that have not yet been made, and neither the criminal complaint nor the bond decision establishes guilt.
For now, the prosecution’s public case can be understood as several pieces that investigators say converge on one morning: a neighbor describing the man who entered Daniel Juedes’ home, physical evidence documenting extensive gunfire, police locating and pursuing a matching BMW, a handgun recovered from that vehicle and statements allegedly made after the driver was arrested. In February, prosecutors will have to turn those allegations into admissible proof while the defense tests each link. Juedes remains presumed innocent as the case approaches trial.
Author note: Last updated October 21, 2026.