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] In Canada, Erven v. The Queen[11] believes that testimony on an obstacle cannot influence the trial itself. This also applies if the judge ruled against the defendant in the voir dire. It is believed that the judge does not know what he heard during the voir dire. [12] The jury is never present at a voir dire. 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. Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article on voir dire In previous centuries, a challenge to a particular juror was negotiated by other jury members, and the challenged judge took an oath to see-say, meaning telling the truth.
[8] This procedure was no longer used when the jury`s challenge function was transferred to the judge. If a witness is to have an interest in the case, the party against whom he or she is summoned has the option of proving that interest by calling another witness to do so, or may request that the witness be sworn in to be sworn in if he or she has an interest in the case. or not, but the party against whom he is summoned cannot use both methods to prove the value of the testimony. If the witness replies that he is not interested, that he is competent, his oath is conclusive; If he swears that he has an interest, he will be rejected. In the United States, voir dire is the process of asking potential judges about their background and possible biases before being selected to serve on a jury. “Voir dire is the process by which lawyers choose or perhaps more appropriately reject certain jurors to hear a case. [15] It also refers to the procedure by which experts are questioned about their background and qualifications before being allowed to present their opinion in court. As mentioned above, voir dire in the United States (particularly in practice under the federal rules of evidence) may also refer to the examination of a witness` background to assess his or her qualification or fitness to testify on a particular subject.
[16] Voir dire is often taught to law students in trial advocacy courses. [17] 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. See say, in law, an interrogation procedure in which jury members are chosen from a large panel or group of potential jurors. The Veniremes are questioned by the judge or by the lawyers of the respective parties. The voir dire attempts to recognize prejudices or preconceptions about guilt or innocence on the part of the Veniremen.
Parties, including the prosecution in a criminal case, can challenge potential jurors and remove an unlimited number of jurors for cause. They also have a limited number of persuasive challenges that allow them to fire a judge without giving reasons. 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] 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 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] An old French word meaning the same thing as the modern word true, true. See tell, tell the truth, tell the truth.2 min read Although this is the rule beyond the power of the courts, it does not seem very satisfactory. The witness is sworn to be sworn in to determine whether he has an interest that would disqualify him because he would be tempted to perjure if he testified if he were interested. But if he is asked whether he has such an interest, if he is dishonest and eager to be sworn into the matter, he will falsely swear that he has none, and his answer is conclusive, he will be recognized as competent; If, on the other hand, he really swears that he has an interest, if he knows that it will exclude him, he is told that because he is so honest, he must be rejected. Under Scottish law, jury selection is random and there are clearly defined exclusions in criminal trials.
[10] Fr. “Tell the truth.” The process of questioning potential jurors. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it comes from the Anglo-Norman language. [4] Our editors will review what you have submitted and decide whether or not to revise the article. Pronounced “vwa dear”. A procedure in which judges and lawyers select a small jury from among eligible voters by questioning them to ensure knowledge of the facts of the case and willingness to decide the case solely on the basis of the evidence presented to the court.