Talk:Voir dire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

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.

Contents 1 Translation? 2 Victim? 3 Perjury? 4 Another aspect

[edit] Translation?

I just had jury duty today and they told us there that "voir dire" means "to see you say." Which fits somewhat better with my knowledge of French and of what the process is like. --Jfruh 02:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

In its most literal translation, voir dire means "to see to say" or "to see to tell". Because French only conjugates the first verb in a clause (with the obvious exception of auxillary--"helping"-- verbs), infinitives are not necessarily translated into English.

For example, the sentence I can see John is written as Je peux voir John (lit. "I can to see John"). If "voir dire" was extracted from a longer French legal term, that would explain why it takes on a meaning other than its literal translation.

(I hope that helps!) Ckamaeleon 18:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It's kind of a bastardized French that came out of England; also known as Anglo-Norman. "Voir" meaning "truth" and "dire" meaning "to say," which is why the literal French translation doesn't fit. Peyna 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Truth" in French is verité. Voir means "to say." 67.170.195.13 01:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. "Voir" in today's French means "to see", but this is largely irrelevant. The term, "voir dire", goes back to Norman times and the Normans spoke a very different language than modern French; in fact they spoke Anglo-Norman and in that language "voir dire" means "speak the truth", "voir" having a more complex connotation here than merely, "to see". If you think about it that meaning is still visible even in a literal translation from modern French: "to see, to say" = "say what you see" = "speak the truth".

This is a great example of how a literal translation can easy destroy the intended meaning of a phrase! ;) -- Hux 13:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And in (somewhat archaic) French, the word "Voire" means "true", used in agreeing with a statement just made. This usage occurs frequently in Rabelais. The word is derived from Latin verum, and has no connection whatever with "voir" meaning to see (Latin videre). --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 17:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Somewhat archaic" ? "Voire" meaning "true" is fully archaic French, Rabelais (1494-1583) already more frequently uses it in the expression "Voire mais" ("True, but"), which in fact introduces a doubt about what has been said before, and this meaning of doubt is the only one left in modern french. The "true" meaning for "voire" existed mainly at a time french spelling was not standardized, and you could write either "voire" or "voir". Therefore refering to it brings confusion more than information and is best removed.

But if you remove it, that leaves the impression that "voir dire" comes from "voir" meaning to see, which is wrong beyond any possible doubt. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victim?

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)

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).

[edit] Perjury?

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)

[edit] Another aspect

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)