Voir dire

Voir dire(/ˈvwɑːrdɪər/; often/vɔɪrdaɪər/; from anAnglo-Normanterm incommon lawmeaning "to speak the truth") is a legal term for procedures during atrialthat help a judge decide certain issues:
FromOld Frenchvoir"true" (from Latinverus"true," fromPIEroot*were-o-"true, trustworthy") and from Old Frenchdire"to say" (from Latindicere"speak, tell, say," from PIE root*deik-"to show," also "pronounce solemnly").
It originally referred to anoathtaken byjurorsto tell thetruth(Latin:verum dicere).It comes from theAnglo-Norman language.
In earlier centuries, achallengeto 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.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 GuineaandCanada, it refers to a "trial within a trial". It is ahearingto determine theadmissibility of evidence, or thecompetencyof awitnessor juror.As the subject matter of thevoir direoften relates to evidence, competence or other matters that may lead tobiason 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.
In Canada, the case ofErven v. The Queenholds that testimony on avoir direcannot 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.The jury is never present during avoir dire. However, since the evidence given at avoir diremay 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.
In Australia, the rule aboutvoir direis 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."The term has thus been broadened in Australian jurisdictions to include any hearing during atrialwhere the jury is removed. TheHigh Court of Australiahas noted that thevoir direis an appropriate forum for the trial judge to reprimandcounselor for counsel to make submissions as to the running of the court to the trial judge.
In the United States,voir direis the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before beingchosen 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 whichexpert witnessesare 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 direcan also refer to examination of the background of a witness to assess their qualification or fitness to give testimony on a given subject.Voir direis often taught to law students intrial advocacycourses.
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 direis a key area of study for criminal trial attorneys.The Center for Jury Studies,a project of the National Center for State Courts, has studiedvoir dire, as has The American Bar Association,and summaries of research conducted on voir dire are freely available in the OnlineJury Research Update (OJRU).