Voir dire (/ˈvwɑːrdɪər/; often/vɔɪrdaɪər/; from anAnglo-Norman term incommon law meaning "to speak the truth") is a legal term for procedures during atrial that help a judge decide certain issues:
FromOld Frenchvoir "true" (from Latinverus "true," fromPIE root*were-o- "true, trustworthy") and from Old Frenchdire "to say" (from Latindicere "speak, tell, say," from PIE root*deik- "to show," also "pronounce solemnly").[1]
It originally referred to anoath taken byjurors to tell thetruth (Latin:verum dicere).[2] It comes from theAnglo-Norman language.[3]
In earlier centuries, achallenge to a particular juror would be tried by other members of thejury panel, and the challenged juror would take an oath ofvoir dire, meaning to tell the truth.[4] This procedure fell into disuse when the function of trying challenges to jurors was transferred to thejudge.
InEngland and Wales,Cyprus,Hong Kong,Ireland,Australia,New Zealand,Papua New Guinea andCanada, it refers to a "trial within a trial". It is ahearing to determine theadmissibility of evidence, or thecompetency of awitness or juror.[5] As the subject matter of thevoir dire often relates to evidence, competence or other matters that may lead tobias on behalf of thejury, the jury may be removed from the court for thevoir dire.
UnderScots law, jury selection is random, and there are a few well-defined exclusions incriminal trials.[6]
In Canada, the case ofErven v. The Queen[7] holds that testimony on avoir dire cannot influence the trial itself. This remains true even if the judge ruled against the accused in thevoir dire. The judge is assumed to ignore what they heard duringvoir dire.[8] The jury is never present during avoir dire. However, since the evidence given at avoir dire may be redundant to evidence at trial, with the consent of the parties a procedure called a "blendedvoir dire" may be used to save time. In this procedure, evidence given in thevoir dire, if then found admissible, is transferred into the main trial without having to be repeated.[9]
In Australia, the rule aboutvoir dire is in section 189 of theEvidence Act 1995 (Cth): "On a voir dire parties can call witnesses, cross-examine opponent's witnesses and make submissions- as they might in the trial proper."[10] The term has thus been broadened in Australian jurisdictions to include any hearing during atrial where the jury is removed. TheHigh Court of Australia has noted that thevoir dire is an appropriate forum for the trial judge to reprimandcounsel or for counsel to make submissions as to the running of the court to the trial judge.[11]
In the United States,voir dire is the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before beingchosen to sit on a jury.[12] It also refers to the process by whichexpert witnesses are questioned about their backgrounds and qualifications before being allowed to present their opinion testimony in court. As noted above, in the United States (especially in practice under theFederal Rules of Evidence)voir dire can also refer to examination of the background of a witness to assess their qualification or fitness to give testimony on a given subject.[13]Voir dire is often taught to law students intrial advocacy courses.[14]
Colloquially, among attorneys and their staff, the term is used to describe the process of selecting a jury in some jurisdictions. Jury selection differs based on the court and locality where a trial occurs. The process of jury selection and managingvoir dire is a key area of study for criminal trial attorneys.[15][16][17] The Center for Jury Studies,[18] a project of the National Center for State Courts, has studiedvoir dire, as has The American Bar Association,[19] and summaries of research conducted onvoir dire are freely available in the OnlineJury Research Update (OJRU).[20]
Anglo-Norman, to speak the truth
Authority control databases: National |
|---|
