Voir dire: Difference between revisions
Azcolvin429 (talk | contribs) →See also: added strike for cause |
added further understanding and Australian view |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''''Voir dire''''' ({{IPA-en|ˈvwɑr ˈdɪər}}) is a phrase in [[law]] which |
'''''Voir dire''''' ({{IPA-en|ˈvwɑr ˈdɪər}}) is a phrase in [[law]] which is derived from the [[Anglo-Norman vernacular|Anglo-Norman]]. In origin it refers to an oath to tell the truth (Latin ''verum dicere''), in other words to give a true verdict. |
||
The word ''voir'' (or ''voire''), in this context, is an old French word meaning "truth". It is unconnected with the modern French word ''voir'', which derives from Latin ''vidēre'' ("to see"), though the expression is now often interpreted by [[false etymology]] to mean "to see [them] say". |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
==Use in British common law== |
|||
| ⚫ | In the [[United Kingdom]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Canada]], and sometimes in the [[United States of America]], 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.<ref>[http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/V/Voirdire.aspx Lloyd Duhaime: Legal Dictionary]</ref>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]] is removed from the [[court]] for the ''voir dire''. |
||
The term has thus been broadened in [[Law in Australia|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 [[legal counsel|counsel]] or for [[legal counsel|counsel]] to make submissions as to the running of the court to the trial judge.<ref>See the High Court of Australia's judgement in ''Jago v The District Court of NSW &ors.'' [1989] HCA 46.</ref> |
|||
==Use in the United States of America== |
|||
| ⚫ | In the United States, it now generally refers to the process by which prospective [[jury|jurors]] are questioned about their backgrounds and potential [[prejudice|biases]] before being chosen to sit on a [[jury]]. It also refers to the process by which expert witnesses are questioned about their backgrounds and qualifications, in order to potentially give an expert opinion in court testimony. As defined by Gordon P. Cleary: "Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case."<ref>Cleary, Gordon P. (2007). ''Trial Evidence Foundations''. James Publishing. Section 201.</ref> |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Revision as of 23:26, 9 November 2009
Voir dire (/ˈvwɑr ˈdɪər/) is a phrase in law which is derived from the Anglo-Norman. In origin it refers to an oath to tell the truth (Latin verum dicere), in other words to give a true verdict.
The word voir (or voire), in this context, is an old French word meaning "truth". It is unconnected with the modern French word voir, which derives from Latin vidēre ("to see"), though the expression is now often interpreted by false etymology to mean "to see [them] say".
Use in British common law
In the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and sometimes in the United States of America, 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.[1]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 is 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.[2]
Use in the United States of America
In the United States, it now generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. It also refers to the process by which expert witnesses are questioned about their backgrounds and qualifications, in order to potentially give an expert opinion in court testimony. As defined by Gordon P. Cleary: "Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case."[3]
See also
References
- ^ Lloyd Duhaime: Legal Dictionary
- ^ See the High Court of Australia's judgement in Jago v The District Court of NSW &ors. [1989] HCA 46.
- ^ Cleary, Gordon P. (2007). Trial Evidence Foundations. James Publishing. Section 201.