This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for thelegal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
I realize this is only a stub article, but I must point out that the www.fija.org link "surviving voir dire" is a politically biased, ajenda advocation piece. I move that it be removed from the page.
I disagree that it doesn't belong because of that; I'll be adding it again. If someone wants to categorize it as "pro-traditionalist" or some other term, that would likely be appropriate, but it's not as if the link's promoting a commercial site.
From the discussion here, I can see that the author(s) believe that "voir dire" being mistranslated as "to see [...] say" is common, but I would like to see some documentation on that assertion made at the end of the etymology section.— Precedingunsigned comment added by184.79.243.185 (talk)18:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just had jury duty today and they told us there that "voir dire" means "to see you say." Which fits somewhat better with my knowledge of French and of what the process is like. --Jfruh02:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In its most literal translation,voir dire means "to see to say" or "to see to tell". Because French only conjugates the first verb in a clause (with the obvious exception of auxillary--"helping"-- verbs), infinitives are not necessarily translated into English.
For example, the sentenceI can see John is written asJe peuxvoir John (lit. "I canto see John"). If "voir dire" was extracted from a longer French legal term, that would explain why it takes on a meaning other than its literal translation.
It's kind of a bastardized French that came out of England; also known asAnglo-Norman. "Voir" meaning "truth" and "dire" meaning "to say," which is why the literal French translation doesn't fit.Peyna02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. "Voir" intoday's French means "to see", but this is largely irrelevant. The term, "voir dire", goes back to Norman times and the Normans spoke a very different language than modern French; in fact they spokeAnglo-Norman and in that language "voir dire" means "speak the truth", "voir" having a more complex connotation here than merely, "to see". If you think about it that meaning is still visible even in a literal translation from modern French: "to see, to say" = "say what you see" = "speak the truth".
This is a great example of how a literal translation can easy destroy theintended meaning of a phrase! ;) --Hux13:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in (somewhat archaic) French, the word "Voire" means "true", used in agreeing with a statement just made. This usage occurs frequently in Rabelais. The word is derived from Latinverum, and has no connection whatever with "voir" meaning to see (Latinvidere). --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da)17:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, "voir dire" would translate as "to see to say" or "see say" in modern French (as in: "je l'ai vu dire", "I saw him say"). Nothing about "true". For what it's worth, a classic French dictionary like the Littre confirms that the latin origin of "voir" is "videre", which means the same thing, i.e. "to see". If there's been some semantic track-skipping because it used to be spelled "voire" - still in French use, albeit a tad archaic - it should be clarified in the article, perhaps?2601:640:8001:4FD0:54A:14B8:E53A:ED56 (talk)23:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Somewhat archaic" ? "Voire" meaning "true" is fully archaic French, Rabelais (1494-1583) already more frequently uses it in the expression "Voire mais" ("True, but"), which in fact introduces a doubt about what has been said before, and this meaning of doubt is the only one left in modern french. The "true" meaning for "voire" existed mainly at a time french spelling was not standardized, and you could write either "voire" or "voir". Therefore referring to it brings confusion more than information and is best removed.
But if you remove it, that leaves the impression that "voir dire" comes from "voir" meaning to see, which is wrong beyond any possible doubt. And in modern French "voire" is occasionally used to mean "indeed", in phrases of the form "in French, indeed European culture".--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da)16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In truth (no pun intended) it is no surprise that the words for "seeing" and the words for "truth" / "proof" are similar. That happens in many languages. In English the expression "seeing is believing" is the quintessential phrase that supports that connection. The reason is that seeing something is undeniably the highest level of proof (as opposed to witness testimony). Thus metaphysically seeing and truth are two aspects of the same life experience and therefore the word for one experience is derived from the other.— Precedingunsigned comment added by172.91.73.212 (talk)21:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Voire" (true) comes from "verum", where the "r" is part of the root. "Voir" (to see) comes from "videre", where the "r" is part of the infinitive ending. No connection whatever. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk)19:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article says, "Voir dire may also be a special hearing where a judge decides whether evidence can be presented at trial. It is a trial within a trial, where the victim may be called to testify." The word, "victim", seems highly inappropriate here. It is both ambiguous (who is it referring to, exactly?) and overly emotive and, additionally, it is not a legal term. Can someone shed some light on who can be called to testify in suchvoir dires? Is it only the plaintiff (as the original text seems to imply) or can others, including defendants, be called? --Hux13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard the term used this way; they're usually called either suppression hearings, if it's based on some sort of wrongdoing by the police or prosecutor, or a motionin limine, which can refer to any sort of pre-trial motion, but often used to deal with evidentiary issues before trial to avoid having to stop and make the jury wait, or to get a ruling so one side doesn't have to revise its case when their evidence gets excluded in the middle of trial. In criminal cases, the victim is not a party - the plaintiff is the state. Crime victims in many states do have certain rights, but generally, they're otherwise treated as any other witness. In civil cases, the victim would be the plaintiff, but you don't hear it used as much in that context. But It's not ambiguous - it refers to the person allegedly injured by the defendant, and it's certainly used in court, both formally and informally.—The precedingunsigned comment was added byPaulGS (talk •contribs)05:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The article could use some more information (I'd add it if I knew :): Are the potential jurors under oath? Can they be punished for false statements leading to them being chosen for the duty? --SLi00:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section fromJury selection surely implies another aspect of this article:
"The process in England and Wales simply consists of the single question: "Can you give a fair hearing to both the Crown and the defence?" Any prospective juror who affirmatively answers the question is impanelled on the jury.
The defendant has a limited right to challenge a juror. Formerly there was a right to "peremptory challenge", by which a defendant could object to a juror without giving a reason, but the number of such challenges was limited. The other kind of challenge was a "challenge for cause", in which the defendant gave specific grounds for believing that the juror was biased. Formerly a challenge to a potential juror was tried by other jurors, who took a special oath for the purpose (hence the name voir dire for the procedure). Now challenges for cause are tried by the trial judge."—Precedingunsigned comment added byMalick78 (talk •contribs)09:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use in Commonwealth countries[edit]In the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada (and sometimes in the United States of America) it refers to a "trial within a trial".
Ireland and the United States are not Commonwealth countries. This section needs to be re-worked so as to better account for these nations in the section.Montalban (talk)02:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's worthing pointing out that both videre (to see) and verum (truth) have an etymological relation (see the OED entry on Wit), and so it seems to be overstating things to say that there is no relation between voir (Latin) and voire (French), since they come from different root words (when these root words themselves are related). But I can see the purpose of the clarification in order to avoid the common misconception that voir is from the French word that is currently in use. I have added in the attenuation that there is no 'immediate' connection.Tsop (talk)10:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the pronunciation as shown in the article, it should be mentioned that there may be local variations. Texas is a prime example, where the term is pronounced as "vore deer". This is consistent in every court where I have been called for jury duty. In several instances, the correct pronunciation was given, with the insistence that "in TEXAS, we pronounce it as "vore deer "
Would it be appropriate to include these alternative pronunciations in the beginning of the article?
Only if you've got an independent source that says so, ideally a publication. The Texans I know who grew up in Miami, in the Texas panhandle, pronounce the name My-A-muh, but Wikipedia doesn't quite recognize that pronunciation.
