Voir dire is the jury selection process. It's French for "to speak the truth." Before your trial begins, you and the prosecution get to question prospective jurors and remove those you believe can't be fair. For a pro se defendant, it's one of the most important stages of trial — and one of the least understood.
A pool of potential jurors — called the venire — is summoned to the courthouse. The judge, prosecution, and defense each get to question them. The questions are designed to uncover bias, conflicts of interest, or prior knowledge about the case.
After questioning, attorneys can remove jurors in two ways: for cause (when there's a specific, articulable reason a juror cannot be fair) and through peremptory challenges (a limited number of removals with no reason required — though they cannot be used to discriminate by race or sex under Batson v. Kentucky).
Unlimited in number. Require the judge to agree there's a specific reason the juror cannot be impartial. Examples: juror knows the defendant, juror has a financial interest in the outcome, juror has already formed a strong opinion about guilt.
Limited in number (varies by jurisdiction and case type). No reason required, but cannot be based on race, sex, or national origin. Strategic — used to remove jurors who seem unfavorable even without a specific articulable bias.
If you're representing yourself, you participate in voir dire the same way a defense attorney would. You can ask jurors questions, challenge jurors for cause, and use your peremptory challenges. Courts may give you slightly more latitude in questioning given your pro se status, but they will not coach you.
The goal is not to find jurors who will automatically side with you — that's not realistic and challenging apparent impartiality without grounds will annoy the judge. The goal is to identify jurors who have strong preconceptions about your type of case, the police, or the legal system that would prevent them from evaluating the evidence fairly.
Effective voir dire questions for a pro se defendant typically probe: prior experience with the criminal justice system, opinions about police credibility, whether the juror can apply the actual burden of proof (not guilty unless proven beyond reasonable doubt), and whether the juror can consider a defendant representing themselves without inferring guilt from that choice.
One of the most important voir dire questions for a pro se defendant is whether jurors can evaluate the case fairly knowing you don't have an attorney. Some jurors assume that a defendant without counsel must be guilty, or must be foolish, or must have something to hide. You have a right to probe for that bias.
A direct question: "The defendant in this case is representing himself without an attorney. That is a constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court. Would the fact that he has chosen to represent himself affect your ability to evaluate the evidence fairly, or would you hold it against him in any way?" A juror who answers yes, or who hesitates significantly, is a potential for-cause challenge.
If your case is tried to the judge rather than a jury — either because it's a minor offense not subject to jury trial, or because you chose a bench trial — there is no voir dire. The judge is the fact-finder.
In Justice of the Peace courts, small claims courts, and many misdemeanor courts, bench trials are common or required. Knowing your judge's background, tendencies, and prior rulings becomes especially important when there's no jury to appeal to. That's where the judge intelligence in Stand focuses most of its value.
See also: what happens at arraignment and how to represent yourself in court.
In bench trials and JP courts, the judge is your jury. Stand gives you a detailed profile of your judge's tendencies — objection patterns, pro se handling, and prior rulings — before you step into the courtroom.
Join the Waitlist