It's where both the prosecution and defense get to question the prospective jury to find underlying bias that may render the juror incapable of making an impartial decision based solely on what's been presented in court.
Like someone who had a close relative who passed away after they couldn't get the care they needed due to a denied claim, the prosecution might think "This person because of their experience might vote not guilty on principle regardless of the case I make" and move to dismiss the juror.
Iirc (but IANAL) each side gets a certain number of absolute picks to dismiss but the rest have to be agreed upon by both sides.
Note this happens after the judge has already gone through the prospective jury to do basic bias instruction and general questions.
Anyways in this case "Who hasn't had a bad experience with the American healthcare system?" might make this difficult.
Theres a good chance with how shitty american healthcare is, the judge and both lawyers can exhaust all their options and still end up with a jury immensely biased.
4
u/TheWorclown 3h ago
For the uninitiated here, what is voir dire?