The literal translation of the Old French phrase signifies “to speak the truth.” This term denotes the preliminary examination of prospective jurors by a judge or counsel. The objective is to determine their qualifications for jury service, uncovering any potential biases or prejudices that might affect their impartiality during trial proceedings. As an example, attorneys might question potential jurors about their prior experiences with law enforcement or their opinions on specific legal issues relevant to the case.
This process is a fundamental safeguard within the justice system, designed to ensure that the jury consists of individuals capable of rendering a fair and unbiased verdict based solely on the evidence presented. The practice has historical roots in common law traditions, evolving as a mechanism to protect the rights of both the accused and the accuser by preventing prejudiced individuals from influencing the outcome of legal proceedings. The effectiveness of this screening is crucial to upholding the principles of due process and equal protection under the law.
Understanding the function and purpose of this preliminary examination is essential for comprehending key aspects of jury selection, trial strategy, and the broader administration of justice. Subsequent discussions will delve into specific strategies employed during this phase, challenges encountered in identifying hidden biases, and the evolving role of technology in refining juror selection techniques.
1. Truthfulness
Truthfulness constitutes the foundational pillar upon which the efficacy of juror selection rests. The process depends entirely on prospective jurors providing honest and accurate responses to questions posed by the court and counsel. Without candid disclosure regarding biases, experiences, or beliefs, the capacity to assemble an impartial jury is fundamentally compromised. For instance, if a potential juror withholds information about a prior negative encounter with law enforcement, a bias against prosecution witnesses may remain undetected, potentially swaying deliberations unfairly.
The impact of untruthfulness can extend beyond the immediate case, eroding public confidence in the judicial system. Mistrials stemming from juror misconduct, including instances of deliberate deception during screening, necessitate costly retrials and may cast doubt on the integrity of the initial verdict. Furthermore, the deliberate concealment of disqualifying information can expose individuals to perjury charges, underscoring the serious legal ramifications of dishonesty during jury selection. Accurate responses are not merely a procedural formality but a civic responsibility essential for maintaining fairness in legal proceedings.
In summary, truthfulness is not merely a desirable attribute but an indispensable prerequisite for the legitimate administration of justice through jury trials. The challenges inherent in detecting deception necessitate a multi-faceted approach, including thorough questioning techniques, background checks where permissible, and careful observation of demeanor. Ultimately, the integrity of the verdict hinges on the commitment of prospective jurors to provide honest and complete disclosures, thereby upholding the principles of impartiality and fairness that underpin the legal system.
2. Impartiality
Impartiality represents the cornerstone of a fair trial, and the examination of potential jurors serves as the primary mechanism for securing this critical element. A juror’s capacity to render a verdict solely on the basis of presented evidence, free from preconceived notions, biases, or personal interests, directly impacts the legitimacy of the judicial process. The questioning allows attorneys and the court to probe potential jurors’ backgrounds, experiences, and beliefs, identifying individuals whose impartiality might be compromised. For instance, a prospective juror who has experienced a similar crime to the one being tried, or who has a close relationship with a party involved, may struggle to remain unbiased.
The practical application of impartiality extends to numerous aspects of the trial. Jurors must approach witness testimony with objectivity, carefully weighing the credibility of each statement without pre-existing assumptions. They must also refrain from conducting independent research or discussing the case with external parties, as such actions could introduce extraneous information and undermine the integrity of deliberations. The effectiveness of the examination procedure in revealing potential prejudices directly influences the composition of the jury and, consequently, the fairness of the trial’s outcome. Failure to identify and remove biased individuals can result in mistrials, appeals, and a erosion of public trust in the judicial system.
In summary, securing impartiality through the examination is a critical challenge that requires diligent effort and careful consideration. The complexities of human bias demand ongoing refinement of questioning techniques and evaluation methods. While the elimination of all bias is an unattainable ideal, the commitment to minimizing its influence remains an essential objective. This commitment to impartiality reflects the broader principles of justice and equal treatment under the law, safeguarding the rights of all parties involved in legal proceedings.
3. Qualification
The determination of juror qualification is a central objective achieved through the process denoted by the French phrase “to speak the truth.” This interrogation serves as a crucial filter, ensuring that only individuals meeting specific legal requirements and possessing the cognitive capacity to understand complex legal proceedings are empaneled. The ability of prospective jurors to comprehend instructions and deliberate fairly is paramount to a just outcome.
-
Legal Eligibility
Legal eligibility forms the foundational layer of juror qualification. Jurisdictions establish specific criteria, often including age, residency, citizenship, and the absence of felony convictions. The preliminary examination identifies individuals who fail to meet these statutory requirements, preempting their participation and safeguarding the integrity of the jury pool. For instance, a prospective juror who is not a resident of the jurisdiction where the trial is taking place would be disqualified during this phase.
-
Cognitive Competency
Cognitive competency encompasses the mental capacity to understand the evidence presented, follow legal instructions, and participate effectively in jury deliberations. The process aims to identify individuals with cognitive impairments that could hinder their ability to grasp complex legal concepts or assess the credibility of witnesses. Questions may indirectly assess comprehension skills, ensuring that jurors possess the necessary intellectual faculties to fulfill their civic duty responsibly. An individual demonstrably unable to understand basic legal terms might be deemed unqualified.
-
Language Proficiency
Language proficiency is a critical consideration, particularly in diverse communities. Jurors must be able to understand and communicate effectively in the language of the court. Where English is the primary language of the proceedings, the preliminary examination may include questions designed to assess a prospective juror’s ability to comprehend witness testimony and engage in deliberations without significant language barriers. An individual with limited English proficiency might be excused if their lack of fluency would impair their ability to understand the case fully.
-
Freedom from Disqualifying Conflicts
Freedom from disqualifying conflicts encompasses the absence of relationships or affiliations that could compromise a juror’s impartiality. The process seeks to uncover potential biases arising from personal connections to the parties involved, witnesses, or the subject matter of the case. For example, a prospective juror who is related to the defendant or has a vested interest in the outcome of the trial would be deemed unqualified due to a conflict of interest.
These facets of qualification, identified and assessed through the careful questioning and evaluation inherent in the preliminary examination, are integral to ensuring the selection of a fair and competent jury. This preliminary evaluation protects the rights of all parties involved and promotes public confidence in the judicial system by preventing unqualified individuals from participating in the critical process of rendering a verdict.
4. Bias Detection
Bias detection, as facilitated by the preliminary examination, is an indispensable component of ensuring a fair and impartial jury. This process aims to uncover conscious and unconscious prejudices that could compromise a potential juror’s ability to render a verdict based solely on presented evidence. The effectiveness of bias detection directly impacts the integrity of the judicial system.
-
Questioning Techniques
Attorneys employ targeted questioning strategies to elicit potential biases. These techniques include hypothetical scenarios, open-ended inquiries, and direct questioning about specific beliefs or experiences. For instance, a question might explore a prospective juror’s feelings about law enforcement or their past experiences as a victim of crime. The goal is to uncover underlying prejudices that might not be readily apparent. The effectiveness of these techniques hinges on the attorney’s skill in framing questions and interpreting responses.
-
Nonverbal Cues
The evaluation of potential jurors extends beyond their verbal responses. Observation of nonverbal cues, such as body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice, provides additional insights into their attitudes and beliefs. A juror’s hesitation or discomfort when answering certain questions might indicate a hidden bias. While nonverbal cues are subjective and require careful interpretation, they contribute to a more comprehensive assessment of potential impartiality.
-
Background Checks and Social Media Analysis
In some jurisdictions, attorneys are permitted to conduct limited background checks or analyze a prospective juror’s social media activity. This information can reveal biases that were not disclosed during questioning. For example, a juror’s online posts expressing strong opinions on a relevant legal issue could raise concerns about their ability to remain impartial. However, the use of background checks and social media analysis is subject to legal restrictions and ethical considerations.
-
Challenges for Cause and Peremptory Challenges
The information gathered during bias detection informs the strategic use of challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. A challenge for cause is based on a demonstrable bias that disqualifies a potential juror, while a peremptory challenge allows attorneys to remove a limited number of jurors without stating a reason. Effective bias detection enables attorneys to exercise these challenges strategically, maximizing their chances of seating an impartial jury. However, peremptory challenges cannot be used to discriminate on the basis of race or gender.
These facets of bias detection collectively contribute to the effort to empanel a jury capable of rendering a fair and unbiased verdict. The ongoing refinement of questioning techniques, the integration of nonverbal cues, and the responsible use of background information are essential for upholding the principles of justice and equal treatment under the law. The process “to speak the truth” remains a critical safeguard in the adversarial legal system.
5. Fairness
Fairness serves as a fundamental principle underpinning the entire jury selection process, and the preliminary examination plays a critical role in its attainment. The objective of this stage is to ensure that the empaneled jury is composed of individuals capable of rendering an impartial verdict, free from bias or prejudice. The connection between procedural mechanisms and the substantive ideal of fairness is paramount.
-
Equal Opportunity for Jury Service
Fairness dictates that all eligible citizens should have an equal opportunity to serve on a jury, irrespective of their race, gender, religion, or socioeconomic status. The preliminary examination cannot be used as a tool to systematically exclude any particular group from jury service. Discriminatory questioning or the improper use of peremptory challenges can undermine this principle, leading to juries that do not represent the diversity of the community. Such actions can perpetuate systemic inequities within the legal system and erode public trust.
-
Transparency and Impartiality in Questioning
The questioning of potential jurors must be conducted in a transparent and impartial manner. Attorneys and the court should avoid leading questions, biased language, or any behavior that could intimidate or coerce a prospective juror into providing dishonest answers. The goal is to create an environment where individuals feel comfortable disclosing potential biases without fear of reprisal. Transparency in the questioning process helps to ensure that all parties have an equal opportunity to assess the suitability of potential jurors.
-
Protection Against Prejudicial Information
Fairness requires that potential jurors be protected from exposure to prejudicial information that could influence their judgment. Attorneys and the court must take steps to prevent the dissemination of inadmissible evidence or irrelevant information that could bias the jury. This might involve restricting media coverage of the case, sequestering the jury during deliberations, or issuing cautionary instructions to jurors about avoiding external sources of information. Protecting jurors from prejudicial influences is essential for maintaining the integrity of the trial process.
-
Due Process and Equal Protection
The examination of potential jurors must adhere to the principles of due process and equal protection under the law. All parties involved in the trial are entitled to a fair opportunity to participate in the jury selection process and to challenge potential jurors who may be biased or unqualified. The court has a responsibility to ensure that the examination is conducted in a manner that respects the rights of both the prosecution and the defense. Failure to uphold due process and equal protection can result in mistrials, appeals, and a diminished perception of justice.
These dimensions of fairness, meticulously addressed through the procedural framework of “to speak the truth,” are fundamental to achieving just outcomes in the legal system. By ensuring equal opportunity, transparency, protection against prejudice, and adherence to due process, the legal process strives to create juries capable of rendering impartial verdicts, thereby upholding the principles of fairness and justice for all.
6. Objectivity
Objectivity, as a principle, is inextricably linked to the function of the preliminary juror examination. The process aims to ensure that individuals empaneled possess the capacity to evaluate evidence and render verdicts without the influence of personal biases or prejudices. Objectivity thus becomes a central criterion in the selection of a fair and impartial jury.
-
Neutral Evaluation of Evidence
Objectivity necessitates that jurors approach all evidence presented with a neutral perspective. This requires a willingness to consider the credibility of witnesses, the relevance of documents, and the validity of expert testimony without pre-existing assumptions or preconceived notions. For example, a juror with a strong personal belief about a specific scientific theory must be capable of evaluating expert testimony based on its merits, irrespective of their prior opinion. The preliminary examination seeks to identify individuals whose personal beliefs might preclude such neutral evaluation.
-
Separation of Facts from Emotions
Maintaining objectivity demands the ability to separate factual information from emotional responses. Jurors must be capable of analyzing evidence dispassionately, avoiding decisions based on sympathy, anger, or personal feelings towards the parties involved. In cases involving emotionally charged subject matter, such as violent crimes or child abuse, the preliminary examination plays a crucial role in identifying individuals who might struggle to remain emotionally detached. Questions designed to assess emotional stability and sensitivity are often employed to identify such potential jurors.
-
Impartial Consideration of Legal Instructions
Objectivity extends to the consideration of legal instructions provided by the judge. Jurors must be willing to follow these instructions precisely, applying the law as it is explained to them, even if they disagree with it personally. The preliminary examination may include questions designed to assess a potential juror’s respect for the law and their willingness to abide by the court’s guidance. Individuals who express a belief that they are above the law or that they are entitled to disregard legal instructions might be deemed unqualified for jury service.
-
Freedom from External Influence
Objectivity requires jurors to remain free from external influences throughout the trial and during deliberations. This includes avoiding contact with media coverage of the case, refraining from discussing the case with individuals outside the jury, and resisting pressure from fellow jurors to compromise their convictions. The preliminary examination may include warnings about the importance of maintaining confidentiality and avoiding outside influences. Jurors who demonstrate a propensity to seek external validation or who are easily swayed by the opinions of others might be considered a risk to the objectivity of the deliberation process.
The facets outlined underscore the pivotal role of objectivity in the process of achieving fairness within the legal system. Through the meticulous interrogation of potential jurors, the preliminary examination seeks to identify individuals capable of adhering to these standards, thereby contributing to the integrity of the trial and the legitimacy of the verdict. Failures in the application of objectivity can lead to biased outcomes and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
7. Competency
Competency, in the context of jury selection, pertains to the capabilities and qualifications of prospective jurors to understand and participate effectively in legal proceedings. The preliminary examination process serves as a critical filter for assessing these capabilities, ensuring that those empaneled possess the requisite cognitive and emotional capacities to render a fair and informed verdict.
-
Understanding of Legal Concepts
Prospective jurors must demonstrate a fundamental understanding of legal terminology, principles of evidence, and the burden of proof. The preliminary examination employs targeted questions to assess this comprehension, revealing potential jurors who may struggle with complex legal arguments or jury instructions. An individual unable to grasp the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, for example, would lack the cognitive capacity necessary for informed deliberation, potentially compromising the fairness of the trial.
-
Ability to Process Information
Competency extends to the capacity to process information presented during the trial, including witness testimony, documentary evidence, and expert opinions. Jurors must be able to retain relevant details, assess the credibility of sources, and synthesize information to form reasoned judgments. Individuals with cognitive impairments or attention deficits may struggle to process the volume of information presented, impacting their ability to participate meaningfully in deliberations. The examination process may include questions designed to assess memory, attention span, and critical thinking skills.
-
Capacity for Impartial Reasoning
Competency encompasses the capacity for impartial reasoning, free from bias or prejudice. Jurors must be able to evaluate evidence objectively, setting aside personal opinions or beliefs that could influence their judgment. The preliminary examination seeks to uncover potential biases or prejudices that could compromise a juror’s impartiality, such as strong opinions on relevant legal issues or personal experiences that could affect their ability to remain neutral. Individuals with deeply entrenched biases may lack the capacity for impartial reasoning, potentially undermining the fairness of the trial.
-
Communication Skills
Effective communication skills are essential for jury deliberation. Jurors must be able to articulate their thoughts and opinions clearly, listen attentively to the perspectives of others, and engage in respectful dialogue. Individuals with communication difficulties, such as language barriers or speech impediments, may struggle to participate effectively in deliberations, potentially hindering the ability of the jury to reach a consensus. The preliminary examination may include questions designed to assess communication skills, ensuring that all jurors can contribute meaningfully to the deliberation process.
These facets of competency, assessed through the preliminary examination, are critical for ensuring the selection of a jury capable of fulfilling its civic duty responsibly. Failure to adequately assess and address competency concerns can lead to unjust outcomes and undermine public confidence in the legal system. The relationship between competency and “to speak the truth” highlights the importance of thorough and thoughtful interrogation of prospective jurors to safeguard the integrity of the trial process.
8. Understanding
Comprehension forms the bedrock upon which the legitimacy and effectiveness of jury selection rest. This cognitive faculty, directly related to the phrase “to speak the truth,” ensures that prospective jurors can process and evaluate information presented during legal proceedings. The ability to grasp complex legal concepts, assess witness credibility, and apply legal instructions impartially is essential for rendering a just verdict. Without sufficient comprehension, jurors cannot fulfill their civic duty responsibly, potentially leading to erroneous outcomes. For instance, if jurors fail to understand the burden of proof or the nuances of circumstantial evidence, they may reach conclusions based on conjecture rather than factual analysis.
The role of understanding extends beyond simply grasping legal terminology. It also involves the capacity to connect evidence to legal principles and to discern potential biases or inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The preliminary examination process, therefore, aims to identify individuals who possess the intellectual capacity to engage in these critical thinking processes. Attorneys may pose hypothetical questions designed to assess a prospective juror’s ability to analyze complex scenarios and apply relevant legal standards. Similarly, questions about prior experiences or beliefs may reveal potential biases that could impede their ability to understand and evaluate evidence objectively. An example would be inquiring about their understanding of the difference between manslaughter and murder in a homicide trial.
In summary, understanding is not merely a desirable attribute for prospective jurors, but a foundational requirement for ensuring the fairness and integrity of jury trials. The rigorous screening of potential jurors for cognitive competency is crucial to upholding the principles of justice. The challenges inherent in assessing comprehension necessitate a multi-faceted approach, including careful questioning, observation of nonverbal cues, and, where permissible, review of educational or professional backgrounds. The effectiveness of this screening process directly impacts the quality of jury deliberations and the legitimacy of the verdict, reinforcing the importance of understanding in the proper functioning of the legal system.
9. Legal Knowledge
The presence or absence of legal knowledge among prospective jurors constitutes a significant variable influencing the fairness and efficiency of jury trials. The preliminary examination, translated from French as “to speak the truth,” functions as a critical mechanism for evaluating this variable, aiming to identify potential jurors whose comprehension of legal principles aligns with the demands of the judicial process. This evaluation seeks to balance the need for an informed jury with the principle that jurors need not possess specialized legal expertise.
-
Understanding of Fundamental Legal Concepts
Prospective jurors are not expected to possess a comprehensive understanding of the law; however, a basic familiarity with fundamental legal concepts is advantageous. The examination may probe their understanding of terms like “reasonable doubt,” “burden of proof,” or “presumption of innocence.” A juror wholly unfamiliar with these concepts may struggle to follow legal instructions and fairly evaluate evidence. For instance, a juror who incorrectly believes the defendant must prove their innocence demonstrates a deficiency in fundamental legal knowledge that the examination aims to uncover.
-
Awareness of the Judicial Process
General awareness of the structure and functioning of the judicial system can enhance a juror’s ability to participate effectively. This includes understanding the roles of the judge, attorneys, and witnesses, as well as the sequence of events in a trial. While detailed knowledge is not required, a juror should understand the basic premise of the adversarial system and the importance of adhering to court procedures. The examination can reveal whether potential jurors possess a rudimentary understanding of the process, allowing attorneys to address any misconceptions or biases stemming from a lack of awareness.
-
Capacity to Follow Legal Instructions
A crucial aspect of legal knowledge is the capacity to understand and follow the legal instructions provided by the judge. Jurors must be able to apply these instructions to the facts presented, even if they disagree with the underlying law. The examination may assess a prospective juror’s willingness to defer to the judge’s interpretation of the law and to abide by the court’s guidance. A juror who expresses a belief that they are entitled to disregard legal instructions or substitute their own judgment for the law demonstrates a lack of the requisite legal knowledge and a potential impediment to a fair trial.
-
Discernment of Bias Influenced by Preconceived Legal Notions
Conversely, excessive legal knowledge or preconceived legal notions can also be detrimental to impartiality. A prospective juror with strong opinions on specific legal issues, derived from personal experiences or media exposure, may be unable to evaluate evidence objectively. The examination attempts to uncover such biases by exploring potential jurors’ attitudes towards specific legal doctrines or their involvement in legal advocacy groups. The goal is to identify individuals whose prior legal knowledge might predispose them to a particular outcome, thereby compromising the fairness of the trial.
These facets of legal knowledge, both its presence and absence, are carefully scrutinized during the preliminary examination. This scrutiny aims to achieve a balance, selecting jurors who possess sufficient understanding of the legal system to participate effectively while avoiding those whose excessive knowledge or biases might prejudice their deliberations. The skillful application of “to speak the truth” thus contributes to the overarching goal of assembling a jury capable of rendering a just verdict based on the evidence and the law.
Frequently Asked Questions about “voir dire translates from french as”
This section addresses common inquiries concerning the process of preliminary juror examination, including its purpose, scope, and limitations.
Question 1: What is the primary objective of the process of questioning potential jurors, denoted by the French phrase “to speak the truth?”
The primary objective is to identify and remove prospective jurors whose biases, prejudices, or lack of qualifications might compromise their ability to render a fair and impartial verdict.
Question 2: What types of questions are typically asked during the preliminary examination?
Questions may pertain to a prospective juror’s background, experiences, beliefs, relationships, and attitudes towards the parties involved, witnesses, or the subject matter of the case. The specific questions vary depending on the nature of the case and the concerns of the attorneys and the court.
Question 3: Can potential jurors refuse to answer questions during the examination?
Potential jurors generally must answer questions truthfully and completely, subject to certain limitations. They may object to questions that are unduly intrusive, irrelevant, or violate their privacy. The judge ultimately decides whether a question is proper and whether a juror must answer it.
Question 4: What recourse is available if a juror provides false or misleading information during the examination?
If a juror intentionally provides false or misleading information, they may be subject to penalties for perjury or contempt of court. The discovery of such misconduct after the trial may also lead to a mistrial or a reversal of the verdict on appeal.
Question 5: How are challenges for cause and peremptory challenges used during the jury selection process?
Challenges for cause are used to remove potential jurors who are demonstrably biased or unqualified. Peremptory challenges allow attorneys to remove a limited number of jurors without stating a reason, although they cannot be used to discriminate on the basis of race or gender.
Question 6: Is there a limit to the number of peremptory challenges attorneys can exercise?
Yes, the number of peremptory challenges is limited by law or court rule. The specific number varies depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the case. Attorneys must exercise these challenges strategically to maximize their chances of selecting a fair and impartial jury.
In summary, the preliminary juror examination is a critical process designed to ensure that juries are composed of individuals capable of rendering just verdicts. The questions, challenges, and legal obligations associated with this examination contribute to the integrity of the legal system.
The next section will explore ethical considerations and potential reforms to the jury selection process.
Tips for Navigating the Preliminary Juror Examination
The effectiveness of the examination, often referred to by the French phrase translating to “speak the truth,” relies on a clear understanding of its objectives and procedures. These tips offer guidance for those potentially involved in this essential process.
Tip 1: Understand the Purpose. The examination aims to identify biases and ensure impartiality. Prospective jurors should recognize that the questions are designed to reveal potential conflicts of interest or prejudices that could affect their ability to render a fair verdict.
Tip 2: Answer Truthfully and Completely. Honesty is paramount. Intentional misrepresentation can result in legal consequences and undermine the integrity of the trial. Provide thorough and accurate responses to all questions posed.
Tip 3: Listen Carefully to the Questions. Ensure a clear understanding of each question before responding. If unsure, request clarification from the attorney or judge. Hasty or misinformed answers can lead to misunderstandings and potential disqualification.
Tip 4: Be Mindful of Nonverbal Communication. Body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice can convey unintended messages. Maintain a respectful and neutral demeanor throughout the examination.
Tip 5: Respect the Process. The examination is a critical component of the justice system. Approach the process with seriousness and respect for the court, the attorneys, and the other prospective jurors.
Tip 6: Acknowledge Potential Biases. Self-awareness is crucial. Reflect honestly on personal beliefs, experiences, and relationships that could influence judgment. Acknowledging potential biases demonstrates integrity and facilitates a fair assessment.
Adherence to these principles enhances the effectiveness of the examination, promoting the selection of a jury capable of fulfilling its civic duty responsibly.
The following sections will delve into ethical considerations and potential reforms for further improvements to the jury selection process.
Conclusion
The preceding exploration has underscored the multifaceted significance of what “to speak the truth” represents: a vital safeguard within the legal system. The examination of prospective jurors serves not merely as a procedural formality but as a fundamental mechanism for ensuring impartiality, competence, and fairness in the administration of justice. The thorough interrogation, aimed at detecting biases and assessing qualifications, directly impacts the composition of juries and, consequently, the outcomes of trials.
The ongoing refinement of questioning techniques, the integration of evolving technologies, and a continued commitment to ethical practices are essential for maximizing the effectiveness of this process. Only through diligent application of “to speak the truth” can society hope to maintain public trust in the judicial system and uphold the principles of equal justice under law, demanding a constant vigilance in the pursuit of impartiality and a dedication to the ideals upon which a fair trial rests. This commitment is essential for preserving the integrity of legal proceedings and ensuring that verdicts are rendered justly.
