Historically, the term legal voir dire referred to the oath required of all jurors to tell the truth or to say what is true. This meant that the jury promised to be impartial and honest in hearing witness statements, reviewing evidence, and reaching a verdict. In centuries past, a challenge to a potential jury was heard by other jurors already selected, rather than by a decision between the parties and the judge. To this end, any lawyer may ask potential jurors a variety of pressing questions, although there are a number of questions that are often used to determine a juror`s suitability for a particular case. Here are some of the frequently asked questions: Colloquially, the term is used by lawyers and their staff to describe the jury selection process in some jurisdictions. Jury selection differs depending on the court and the location of the trial. The jury selection and administration process is a key area for criminal litigators. [18] [19] [20] The Center for Jury Studies, a project of the National Center for State Courts, studied voir dire, as did the American Bar Association. [21] See saying (/ˈvwɑːr dɪər/; often /vɔɪr daɪər/; from an Anglo-Norman expression meaning «telling the truth») is a legal expression for a variety of jury trial trials. It originally referred to an oath of the jury to tell the truth (Latin: verum dicere). [1] This term is also used informally to describe jury selection practice in some jurisdictions. [2] [3] The word voir (or voire) in this combination comes from Old French and is derived from the Latin verum, «[what is true]».
[5] It is related to the modern French word even, which may mean «really» in obsolete usage, but not to the more common word see, «to see», which is derived from the Latin vidēre. William Blackstone described it as veritatem dicere,[6] which was translated by John Winter Jones as «Telling the truth». [7] However, the term is now often misinterpreted by the wrong etymology to mean «to see them say». The term is used (like voir dire) in modern Canadian legal French. Seesay consists of oral questions put to potential jurors by the judge, parties or lawyers, or a combination of these. This oral examination, often supplemented by a written discovery questionnaire, is used to determine whether a potential juror is biased, knows any of the parties, lawyers or witnesses, or should otherwise be excluded from jury duty. Voir dire is an instrument for obtaining the constitutional right to an impartial jury, but it is not a constitutional right in itself. Voir dire is the process of selecting potential judges from a pool of pre-selected jurors. During this stage of jury selection, lawyers for each party, as well as the judge, ask questions of each potential juror to determine whether they are biased in the case or why they should not be selected. This French term literally means «to tell the truth» and is used in the United States to determine the truth about jurors` ability to judge a legal case fairly.
To explore this concept, consider the following definition. In Australia, the voir dire rule is set out in section 189 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth): «In a voir dire, the parties may call witnesses, cross-examine the opponent`s witnesses and make statements — as they would in the trial itself.» [13] The term has therefore been expanded in Australian jurisdictions to include any hearing in a trial where the jury is removed. The High Court of Australia has concluded that voir dire is an appropriate forum for the trial judge to reprimand a defence lawyer or for defence counsel to make submissions to the trial judge on the conduct of the court. [14] Potential jurors are notified of the date and time by mail to report to the courthouse for jury selection. Once there, each person is brought into the room and questioned by the parties or their lawyers, as well as by the judge, to determine whether they are biased about the case or any of the parties to the case. In England and Wales, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Canada, it is referred to as a «process within a process». This is a hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence or the competence of a witness or jury. [9] Since the purpose of voir dire often relates to evidence, jurisdiction or other matters that may lead to bias on the part of the jury, the jury may be removed from office.
What does the sentence mean? The literal translation of the expression French into English is «to tell the truth.» Dictionary.com defines the expression as «. Name, law. (1) an oath taken to a witness or proposed jury, by which he or she takes an oath to tell the truth during an examination to establish his or her competence. 2) the test itself. Or even say is the process that lawyers conduct for both the defense and the prosecution to determine who will be the fairest, most honest and most advantageous jurors for the case that each lawyer is trying to argue. The purpose of voir dire is not to form the jury, but to give the parties the opportunity to choose an impartial committee. Therefore, urgent matters should test the capacity and competence of judges without intentionally or unintentionally planting harmful content on them. Trial judges have considerable flexibility in determining the parameters of the hearing, including the ability to determine the importance and relevance of issues and to determine the length of the hearing. Potential judges may be removed from the jury pool for one of two reasons: (1) they may be removed for «cause» or (2) they may be removed for «compelling challenge.» If a potential judge has a conflict or bias, such as Mary`s experience with a drunk driver, they are likely to be fired «for cause.» These jurors are dismissed by the judge as soon as the dispute is resolved.
(vwahr [with an almost silent «r»] deer) n. from French «voir pour parler», the questioning of potential jurors by a judge and lawyers in court. See-dire is used to determine whether a jury is biased and/or cannot deal with issues fairly or whether there are reasons not to allow a jury to sit (knowledge of the facts; knowledge of parties, witnesses or counsel; profession that could lead to prejudice; prejudice against the death penalty; or previous experience such as acting in a similar case).
