Anderson v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue

How later courts describe this case

• prospective juror properly excluded because she was unwilling to consider the death penalty except in serial murders
• “The Court is considering your conduct, what you did as far as your obstructions in the period of your release.”
• if evidence that appears to be admissible at the time later turns out to be inadmissible, complaining party must move to strike evidence at the time its inadmissibility becomes apparent
• in evaluating closely similar remarks, court determined “[t]he prosecutor went too far in arguing her own credentials for truthfulness to the jury.”
• where term is not defined by statute, it should be given its ordinary meaning
• Article 38.23(a) did not require exclusion of the evidence