Each week we select a legal term or phrase that’s commonly misunderstood, interesting, or is an unmentioned consequence of voting. This week’s word is the latter.

Written by: Amy E. Seely

In the United States, voir dire, which translates to “to speak the truth” in Old French, refers to the process of questioning and selecting jurors to sit for a trial. Voir dire is used to create a fair and impartial jury, which is a constitutional right protected by the Sixth Amendment. The process formally involves a general questioning session of a group of potential jurors under oath, during which individuals raise their hands to show allegiance to statements the lawyers make. The lawyers can then individually question jurors to explore potential sympathies and biases in an effort to determine if they are competent to serve, as well as which way the person will vote. Although voir dire varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, generally lawyers may dismiss potential jurors for cause or with peremptory challenges.

Either side may move for a dismissal for cause if a prospective juror is connected to or biased about a case. For instance, let’s say that in an assault case, a potential juror is the defendant’s close friend. Would he be an impartial, unbiased juror? Probably not, so if the prosecution’s questioning elicits this information, the prosecutor may move to dismiss the potential juror for cause. However, it is at the judge’s discretion as to whether or not to sustain this request. If the judge feels that a suitable reason for dismissal has been established, he will ask that potential juror to step down and another will take his or her place. If the judge does not feel that a suitable reason underlies the request for dismissal for cause, he can deny the request. With the goal of a fair trial in mind, challenges for cause are unlimited.

Each side also has a limited number of peremptory challenges. These are used to dismiss a juror without the need to give a reason for dismissal. A peremptory challenge usually is based on the lawyer’s hunch that a potential juror will vote a particular way. Many critics believe that such guesswork and psychological game-playing is really just a form of stereotyping in disguise. However, as each side has an equal number of peremptory challenges, the consensus is that this practice generally does not favor either side, as potentially the prospective jurors with the most extreme and opposing viewpoints are being removed.

For those who would consider fudging your answers during voir dire to escape jury duty, a word of caution: the judges are on to you, and they can charge you with perjury! Plus, you never know, you could have a little fun watching the legal system and puzzling out why the prosecution was so keen on dismissing that little old lady with twelve grandchildren and a penchant for romance novels!