In Holland v. State, 668 So. 2d 107 (Ala. Crim App. 1995) the defendant argued that his conviction should be reversed because "the record did not contain the oath administered to the prospective jurors before their voir dire examination." Id. at 107-08. The court stated that while there is no statutory requirement that veniremembers be sworn, "'an oath should be administered to prospective jurors prior to voir dire examination so that any answers given by these jurors will be under such oath.'" 668 So. 2d at 108. The court noted that there was no reason why the principles governing the administration of an oath to the petit jurors should not also govern the administration of an oath to the venire. Id. Therefore, the court remanded Holland's case for an inquiry into whether the venire had been properly sworn.