If ever we needed a lesson in the fallibility of expertise, the past year has rendered it in spades. As Americans struggled to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, the public performance of the "experts"—the ones prancing to the podium, not the ones working quietly in their labs to develop life-saving vaccines—have ranged from inconsistent to disingenuous, with a healthy dose of hubris thrown in for good measure. For those disposed to defer to authority, it has been a sobering slog. Yet within the morass of misinformation reposes an important message for lawyers and judges who are called upon to assess the reliability of expertise in the courtroom: Expert utterances need to be assessed with a massive measure of skepticism.

Parade of Peccadilloes

Let's briefly recall just a few of the Greatest Hits of the past year. First, we were told, "Don't wear masks!" Soon after, that became, "You must wear masks!" Panetta, G., "Fauci Says He Doesn't Regret Telling Americans Not to Wear Masks at the Beginning of the Pandemic," Business Insider, July 20, 2020. The experts projected American fatalities would be in the millions. Then the forecast was reduced to hundreds of thousands. It was then again reduced to 60,000. Czachor, E., "Dr. Fauci Says U.S. Coronavirus Deaths Could Be Far Less Than Predicted, But Cautions Against Loosening Social Distancing Restrictions," Newsweek, April 9, 2020. Presently, the count is somewhat north of 400,000.