Clinical Psychology

area of criminal, civil, family, and administrative law.
In addition, they serve as consultants to agencies and
individuals throughout the legal system.
Of course, the foregoing thumbnail sketch of
forensic history from Munsterberg to Bazelon leaves
out many details and controversies. Even before
Munsterberg, William Stern reported in 1901 that he
was studying the“correctness”of recollection—an
early precursor of today’s research on eyewitness testi-
mony. And even Freud, in a 1906 speech to some
Austrian judges, claimed that psychology has real appli-
cationstothelaw.Later,JohnWatsonalsoassertedthat
the law and psychology have common interests.
Lest the reader think that forensic psychology
marched inexorably toward professional respect-
ability, it is important to note that not everyone
thought psychology had much to offer the legal
system. Even Munsterberg was hardly without
critics. Because he tended to promote the role of
psychology before he had much empirical data to
back his claims, many dismissed his book out of
hand. In a 1931 address, Lewis Terman noted
“that Munsterberg’s error was in exaggerating the
importance of psychology’s contributions based on

research then at hand. He went on to suggest that

in light of significant scientific advances the ultimate

significance of psychology for the legal profession

could not be overestimated”(Blau, 1998, p. 3). Box

19-1 illustrates just how harsh some members of the

legal community could be regarding Munsterberg’s

thesis. Certainly into the 1950s, before Judge Baze-

lon’s ruling took hold, judges as often as not failed

to qualify psychologists as experts in the courtroom.

The standoff between psychology and law has

been characterized by Loh (1984) as a phase during

which psychologists wanted to contribute to the legal

system but attorneys were having none of it. In the

1930s, psychology was primarily applied to a critique

of legal doctrine and decisions. In the 1950s, psychol-

ogists were mainly occupiedin trying to serve as expert

witnesses and, in the 1970s and 1980s, as consultants on

matters pertaining to juror behavior (Loh, 1984).

Now, as noted at the outset, forensic psychol-

ogy has arrived at a point where there are specialists

in psycholegal research, interdisciplinary training

programs are commonplace, and numerous spe-

cialty books are published. The many journals in

this area includeLaw and Human Behavior, Criminal

BOX19-1 Focus on Professional Issues: Munsterberg on Trial

Munsterberg (1908) complained that no one (teacher,

artist, businessperson, physician, minister, politician, or

soldier) could be as resistant as an attorney to the idea

that psychologists might be of help. He charged that

lawyers, judges, and even members of juries seemed to

think that all they needed to function correctly was

common sense.

Professor John Wigmore (1909), an eminent pro-

fessor of law at Northwestern University, considered

Munsterberg’s claims the height of arrogance. Reflecting

the feelings of many attorneys, Wigmore wrote a clever

yet scathing parody in response. He sketched a fictional

libel suit filed against Munsterberg, accusing him of

overstating what psychology had to offer, ignoring the

many disagreements among psychologists themselves,

and failing to understand the difference between labo-

ratory results and the realities of legal requirements.

The“suit”was filed in“Windyville”in“Wundt

County.”Munsterberg’s attorneys were named“R. E.

Search, Si Kist, and X. Perry Ment.”“Judge Wiseman”

heard the case against Munsterberg and his claim that

“lawyers are obdurate.”

Of course, the proceedings went against

Munsterberg. After only a few minutes of whispered

consultation, the jury agreed on the verdict and found

for the plaintiffs. Munsterberg was fined $1 in damages.

All in all, Wigmore’s attack was so clever and devastat-

ing that it took 25 years for psychologists to once again

be considered fit as expert witnesses. In fact, however,

shortly before his death some 30 years later, Wigmore

softened his critique. He asserted that courts should be

ready to use any methods that psychologists themselves

agree are sound, accurate, and practical. Now, of

course, Wigmore’s change of heart is reflected in

everyday court procedures. But it may be true that had

Munsterberg been a little more restrained in his original

claims, the entire Munsterberg-Wigmore episode would

never have occurred.

FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 541