Tort Law

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Jury Voir Dire. For more information about juries see the pages on Wikipedia.

Jury Voir Dire-Cases

2010 Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 279 Va. 566, 692 S.E.2d 226.
The extent and method of voir dire is within the sound discretion of the Court.

1989 Speet v. Bacaj, 237 Va. 290, 377 S.E.2d 397.
Scope of examination of venireman rests within sound discretion of trial court. Any comment deliberately made to inform jury that defendant is insured against accident is reversible error. Trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing to allow plaintiff to question jury about medical malpractice insurance crisis.

1975 Davis v. Maynard, 215 Va. 407, 211 S.E.2d 32.
Plaintiff’s counsel made obvious attempt during voir dire of jury to inform them that defendant was insured. `Since action was deliberate, mistrial should have been granted.

1974 Charlottesville Music Center, Inc. v. McCray, 215 Va. 31, 205 S.E.2d 674.
Juries are not required to be totally ignorant of facts and issues involved. When examined on voir dire, jurors indicated they had no bias or prejudice for or against either party. Moreover, record does not contain newspaper articles on which contention of prejudice is based.

1963 Jackson v. Prestage, 204 Va. 481, 132 S.E.2d 501.
Voir dire questioning was properly restricted by trial court when plaintiff’s counsel asked about membership in social clubs and awarding of damages for pain and suffering.

1961 Davis v. Sykes, 202 Va. 952, 121 S.E.2d 513.
Purpose of jury voir dire is to ascertain whether any juror has any interest or bias in case. Questioning beyond this scope lies within discretion of trial court. Refusal to ask jurors whether they know witnesses so as to aid parties in making peremptory challenges is not abuse of discretion.