Litigation terms
Voir dire
Voir dire is the questioning process used to test suitability before someone is empaneled or heard — most commonly jury selection, but also the examination of a witness or expert outside the jury's presence.
From the Anglo-Norman “to speak the truth.” In its familiar sense, voir dire is jury selection: the judge and counsel question prospective jurors about backgrounds and biases, and jurors are removed either for cause (a demonstrated inability to be impartial, unlimited in number) or by peremptory challenge (limited in number, no reason required — but not exercisable on discriminatory grounds under Batson v. Kentucky).
The second sense matters just as much in practice: voir dire of a witness — a focused examination, often outside the jury’s presence, to test whether a foundation actually exists. Opposing counsel may voir dire an expert on qualifications before the court accepts them, or probe whether a document’s sponsor can really authenticate it before it comes into evidence.
Why it matters in practice
Both senses reward the same preparation: knowing the record cold. Jury voir dire is where case themes get their first live test — the facts you’ll lead with shape the biases you’re screening for. Witness voir dire is nearly pure fact work: the gap between what an expert’s report assumes and what the record shows is the cross-examination, delivered early.
In the fact record
A verified chronology earns its keep here. Walking into selection — or into an expert’s voir dire — with every fact dated and cited means the questions write themselves from the record instead of from memory.