Talk:Voir dire

message: 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.
::I have removed it. It is utterly irrelevant here. Neutralitytalk 23:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: 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 such voir dires? Is it only the plaintiff (as the original text seems to imply) or can others, including defendants, be called? -- Hux 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 motion in 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 preceding unsigned comment was added by PaulGS (talk • contribs) 05:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Victim?

message: 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? --SLi 00:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perjury? 

message: This section from Jury 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."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malick78 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another aspect

message: The article states:
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)
thread_title:  Use in Commonwealth Countries 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No Etymological Connection to videre 

message: The word itself voir is probably not used past the 14th century, but English courts had for centuries spoken Law French Law French 2603:8000:D000:3300:A0BF:C52B:FA3:B116 (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law French