Voir dire is a legal phrase for a variety of procedures connected with jury trials. It originally referred to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth ; i.e., to say what is true, what is objectively accurate or subjectively honest, or both.
Etymology
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it comes from the Anglo-Norman language. The word voir, in this combination, comes from Old French and derives from Latin verum, " true". It is related to the modern French word, "indeed", but not to the more common wordvoir, "to see", which derives from Latin vidēre. William Blackstone referred to it as veritatem dicere, which was translated by John Winter Jones as "To speak the truth". However, the expression is now often interpreted by false etymology to mean "to see say". The term is used in modern Canadian legal French.
Historic use
In earlier centuries, a challenge to a particular juror would be tried by other members of the jury panel, and the challenged juror would take an oath of voir dire, meaning to tell the truth. This procedure fell into disuse when the function of trying challenges to jurors was transferred to the judge.
In the United Kingdom, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Canada, it refers to a "trial within a trial". It is a hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence, or the competency of a witness or juror. As the subject matter of the voir dire often relates to evidence, competence or other matters that may lead to bias on behalf of the jury, the jury may be removed from the court for the voir dire. The term has thus been broadened in Australian jurisdictions to include any hearing during a trial where the jury is removed. The High Court of Australia has noted that the voir dire is an appropriate forum for the trial judge to reprimand counsel or for counsel to make submissions as to the running of the court to the trial judge. Under Scots law, jury selection is random, and there are a few well-defined exclusions in criminal trials. In Canada, the case of Erven v. The Queen holds that testimony on a voir dire cannot influence the trial itself. This remains true even if the judge ruled against the accused in the voir dire. The judge is assumed to ignore what he or she heard during voir dire. The jury is never present during a voir dire. In Australia, the rule about voir dire is in section 189 of the Evidence Act 1995 : "On a voir dire parties can call witnesses, cross-examine opponent's witnesses and make submissions- as they might in the trial proper."
In the United States, voir dire is the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. "Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case." It also refers to the process by which expert 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, 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. Voir dire is often taught to law students in trial advocacy courses.
In fiction
The play Inherit the Wind has an example of the legal process in terms of jury selection where the attorney for the defense, Henry Drummond, struggles to arrange a reasonably unbiased jury in a small town where the public sentiment is blatantly favoring the prosecution. However, the play has Drummond forced to entirely use his limited number of peremptory challenges to weed-out prospective jurors, even when they are so obviously prejudiced in the prosecution's favor to the point of bellowing their opinions on the stand that most should be struck for cause. The Academy Award-winning film My Cousin Vinny includes a scene depicting the voir dire of the defense attorney's fiancée, who is summoned to the stand as an expert in general knowledge of automobiles. The prosecution is highly skeptical of her qualifications since she states that she is an unemployed hairdresser, but also has extensive work experience as a mechanic in her family's automotive business. With that doubt in mind, the prosecution asks a highly technical automotive question about a specific automobile make, model, year, engine size, and carburetor type, which she refuses to answer as an invalid question. At the request of the court for a clarification, she explains that the question is deceptive: the prosecution asked about a vehicle that never existed per the specifications. She goes on to explain in exacting detail when the vehicle described was actually first manufactured, then provide the answers to the prosecutor’s question for that model year, being the closest match. Surprised at such a detailed and authoritative answer, the prosecutor concludes the voir dire, saying she is acceptable as an expert witness. In the television series Bull, a Hollywood version of the voir dire process plays a central role in nearly all episodes, with key elements of the psychological makeup of potential jurors meshed with the elements of the forthcoming trial being the factor for the decision whether to accept or "strike" a potential juror.
