The legal terminology "voir dire" was used in an answer. What does 'voir dire' really mean?

Question

One thousand apologies to the kind folks taking the time to respond to my less-than-precise-question. Alas, it seems I failed up-front when I neglected to be more specific when I applied to the multitide for the requested information.

All responding gave answers speaking to the manner and method by which 'voir dire' could be seen in the real world when put into operation; but noone told us what 'voir dire' really means. I suspect 'voir dire' has it's own, unique, meaning. Knowing what 'voir dire' does in the courtroom is interesting and, of course, informative, but this species of reply fails to address what 'voir dire' would mean to an etymol, or some other individual willing to opine on the words
believed to define or give the 'definition' (e.g., 'the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc.') of 'voir dire'.

In short, what does 'voir dire' really mean?

Thanks in advance. Jabba

Answer 1

Voir dire is the process of interviewing prospective jurors. It is the process where judges and lawyers select a petit jury from among those eligible to serve, by questioning them to determine knowledge of the facts of the case and a willingness to decide the case only on the evidence presented in court.

Ok. Edit.
Voir dire is a phrase in law which derives from Middle French. In origin it refers to "an oath to speak the truth" (Latin - verum dicere), so that according to the conventions of modern French spelling it should be voire dire. However, in modern English it is interpreted by false etymology to mean "to see them say," and generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being invited to sit on a jury.
Is that more in line of what you wanted?

Answer 2

I essentially means questioning someone before accepting them in a role the person will play in court. For instance, voir dire the process whereby attorneys at a trial will question potential jurors to see if they are biased against the attorneys' client. The questions are supposed to be directly relevant to bias and can't go into other types of detail, but many judges, in California at least, allow attorneys to go into other areas. The attorneys are allowed a certain number of peremptory challenges and, usually, an unlimited number of challenges for cause. A peremptory challenge is to get rid of a juror for any reason. However, the attorney would want to get rid of a juror for cause if he could, because he only has a finite number of peremptory challenges. A challenge for cause means that the attorney thinks the juror is biased against the attorney's client. The judge determines whether the attorney is correct. The bias could be racial, because the person knows the victim or the defendant, because the juror couldn't be fair in the particular case, or any number of reasons. However, voir dire is that part of the jury selection process whereby the judge and attorneys ask questions of the prospective jurors to determine whether to make peremptory challenges or challenges for cause.

However, the phrase is also used in another part of a trial. When one attorney is trying to ask questions to get a witness, usually an expert witness, qualified as a witness, the opposing attorney may also ask to "voir dire" the witness to look into the witness's qualifications that qualify that witness to speak on a particular issue. Usually, as said above, this is done where an attorney wants to qualify a witness as an expert in a particular field. The attorney attempts to "lay a foundation" that the witness is qualified in the particular field necessary to answer questions. For instance, if you want an "expert" to talk about witness identifications, the attorney needs to lay a foundations showing that the "expert" has academic qualifications and work related qualifications that are sufficiently related to witness identifications before the expert can answer any questions about the witness identifications at issue. Once the attorney is done laying the foundation, the attorney then asks the court to qualify the "expert" as an "expert." At this time, the opposing attorney is asked if he has any objections. He may object or he may not object or he may ask to "voir dire" the witness. The opposing attorney then asks questions in the middle of the first attorney's direct examination of the witness (between the laying of the foundation and the expert's opinions on the issues at hand) regarding the expert's qualifications and ability to deal with the issues at hand. Again, these questions are referred to as a voir dire of the witness.

However, under some cases, lay witnesses (also known as percipient witnesses) who have actually witnesses something related to the issues at hand, may also be subject to witness voir dire to see if they qualify as a witness. However, lay witness qualifications are so minimal that this is very rare.

Answer 3

That means to question someone on the witness stand in a Court of Law to determine if they would be a creditable witness. Interviewing potential jurors is called the Selection Process and has nothing to do with voir dire.

Answer 4

Voir dire refers to the preliminary examination (questioning) of prospective jurors or witnesses under oath to determine their competence and suitability to be jurors for that particular trial.

Each side's attorneys are trying to identify the best jurors for their case while weeding out anyone who may have a bias that can affect their judgment and ultimately the case.

Think of it like a job interview - but instead of getting the job, you get to sit on the jury for that case. Hope that helps :-)

Answer 5

in reference to another case in the past dealing with the same issue.