ABSTRACT
For most of the last millennium, educated people entered four professions: the priesthood, engineering, medicine, and the law. During the past century, a profusion of professions abounded. The mission of universities shifted from educating a well-rounded gentleman capped by awarding the baccalaureate degree to offering a staggering menu of advanced (graduate and professional) degrees. The explosion of knowledge, the fruit of the Enlightenment, led to differentiation and specialization of knowledge. Consider how few physicians are general practitioners; even the “GP” is now a specialist in “family practice.” This proliferation of knowledge and technical specialties has implications for the justice system. A jury of one’s peers was once composed of educated gentlemen who could understand evidence
presented at trials. In fact, most cases were (and still are) heard by judges. As knowledge and technical developments blossomed, the evidence presented in courts grew beyond the grasp of most fact finders (judges and jurors). The duty of a lawyer is to provide a complete and spirited advocacy of his or her client. If technical information may be probative or informing and helpful to a case, an ethical lawyer is bound to seek the best and most favorable testimony for his or her client. At the beginning of the 20th century, Terman introduced an early version of the test he was to adapt from France, which would be known as the Stanford-Binet, into court in defense of a murder suspect. In Europe, the Sterns (current specialization would classify them as developmental psychologists) experimented with the ability of children to provide veridical testimony. This introduction of the “softer” or social and behavioral sciences to the Court reached its apotheosis with two noteworthy figures.
