WARNING: This court report is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental or stolen from Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (1818).
We could all use a good laugh at this point, and STC is here to save the day. The Mock Trial 2025, which took place at the High Court of Transylvania (also known as the Harman Theatre), was a hilarious homage to Mary Shelley, AI, and most of all, the rule of law.
The annual Mock Trial, presented by the STC Bard Association, celebrates the connection between law and classic theater by basing its subject on an upcoming STC production. This year, it is Frankenstein, based on the novel by Mary Shelley, written and directed by Emily Burns, which opens at the Klein Theatre on May 27.
Titled Teaching the Creature’s Brain — Who Is the Real Monster?, the event begins with a projection of Frankenstein wearing a gag T-shirt with the slogan “Tech Support.”
We learn that Victor Frankenstein, after a period of solitude and study, assembled his Creature from cadaver body parts and infused its AI brain with his wife Elizabeth’s personality and writings. The Creature, which (surprise!) did not possess a conscience, suffered from mood swings and violent episodes, which, tragically, resulted in murder.
In Elizabeth Frankenstein vs. Victor Frankenstein, we and this court are presented with two questions:
- Whether the lower court erred in finding that Victor Frankenstein was not negligent in his development and validation of his Creature’s AI brain and personality.
- Whether the lower court erred in finding that Elizabeth had no cause of action under the No AI Fraud Act because she had no expectation of privacy in her publicly observable characteristics or in information that she revealed.
Our Moderator was Abbe David Lowell, STC Board of Trustees Vice Chair and Chair of the Bard Association.
Lowell introduced the High Court of Transylvania: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Supreme Court of the United States; Justice Stephen Breyer (retired), Supreme Court of the United States, presiding; Justice Leondra Kruger, Supreme Court of California Judge Nicole G. Berner, United States Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit; Judge Amit Mehta, United States District Court, District of Columbia; and the Marshal for the Court, Pamela Talkin, former Marshal of the United States Supreme Court.
Counsel for Elizabeth Frankenstein was Doug Jones, Former United States Senator and United States Attorney, Alabama. Counsel for Victor Frankenstein was Andrew E. Lelling, Former United States Attorney, District of Massachusetts.
Senator Doug Jones began by asserting that Victor
grievously and torturously harmed his wife, Elizabeth, using an admittedly novel scientific technique — not just to create life as he so boldly proclaims. But to implement a misogynistic campaign to both sully his long-suffering wife’s reputation and to thus exercise total domination and control over her.
Fortunately, the male sex was not solely depicted with calumny. Counsel for Victor, Mr. Lelling, informed us that according to recent studies discussed in the Washington Post and New York Times, “men are, in fact, more romantic than women.”
We learned many alternative facts of interest. Apparently, Justice Breyer has a great-grandmother who lives in Transylvania and loves it. Justice Kruger reminded us that “the defendant proposed to your client, then ghosted her for six years while he holed up in a lab creating a monster from dug-up body parts. [The monster] conveniently enough happened to murder someone on the night before their wedding — now wouldn’t a woman of prudence at some point, between the ghosting and the monstering and the murdering, make like Ariana Grande and say thank you, next!”
It’s hard to argue with that. It turned out, appallingly, that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were using cases from two different courts. Lelling tells us:
My brother, Senator Jones, insists on only citing cases from the United States Supreme Court instead of cases from the High Court of Transylvania. Now the U.S. Supreme Court is a respectable, if occasionally misguided, body — and merely persuasive authority for this court. Under this court’s long-standing precedents, Victor prevails. Now of course you are free to abruptly reverse precedent that Transylvanians have relied on for 50 years. But really, what High Court would do something like that?
Lelling believes that this is a “slam dunk” for the defense. Although certain citations, such as Karloff vs. Pitchfork Manufacturers’ Association or Bates vs. Motel Licensing Board, were difficult to find on Lexis or Westlaw, he has confidence in his system of choice, Chat GPT.
In another shocking turn of events, we discovered that it was possible the case could have grave implications for actor Timothée Chalamet.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson brought up this hypothetical:
JUSTICE JACKSON: Suppose Victor had used his talents to build a perfect replica of Chalamet with the goal of entering the creature into a Chalamet look-a-like contest? There’s no prize money but it would obviously bring Victor a lot of press. Would you still say that Victor’s conduct in creating that creature falls out of the statute’s reach?
ANDREW LELLING: Well, Victor never sought any profit or any gain from creating —
JUSTICE JACKSON: I understand that but you know I just want to know — what if the Chalamet-like creature recorded an album of Bob Dylan covers, in the same voice and style as Bob Dylan himself. Could Victor be held liable under the statute?
ANDREW LELLING: Perhaps. But simply illustrating how different that scenario is from the one at hand —
JUSTICE JACKSON: All right. Well, I just want to understand the impact of your reading of this statute on Timothée Chalamet.
And of course, we share her concern for this gifted artist.
Judge Amit Mehta proposed a possible solution.
JUDGE MEHTA: Counsel, I am surprised that this case has gone this far. Frankly, I mean, it is troubling that you have a husband and a wife that haven’t been able to resolve this case through some settlement mediation or what have you. And I guess the question is, would we even be here if Elizabeth had simply just said, “Thank you.” Just even once!
We all — especially those of us who have been married — can understand the importance of saying thank you, especially if you are a woman.
Senator Jones mounted a strong defense of his client.
SENATOR JONES: Victor boasts of his brilliance and seems to think that it affords him a type of complete immunity. But, like a recent case from the United States, that form of immunity makes a mockery out of the foundational principle that no man is above the law. Victor denies Elizabeth’s harm…claiming she was already pretty screwed up before he created the monster. The evidence, however, is that Elizabeth loved and was perhaps inexplicably loyal to Victor. She waited six long years.… Despite her misgivings after his return, and his strange behavior, she succumbed to his seductions. Yes, Elizabeth is now screwed up, but it is Victor’s fault! As the great poet Taylor Swift explained after her own betrayal, “What a shame she went mad — No one likes a mad woman — You made her like that!” It is Victor who is the real monster here.
While the court deliberated, and the audience voted on their phones, Abbe Lowell interviewed Special Guest Bruce Reed, who most recently served as deputy White House chief of staff on policy issues. Before that, he served in previous White Houses doing the same on domestic policy. He has been advisor to three different presidents. Part of his portfolio has been to deal with issues of Big Tech data and its protection, and, of course, the emergence of AI. Lowell addressed its dangers:
ABBE LOWELL: As we look forward to the increased use of AI — ranging from those over there pretending that they didn’t use it to write their briefs. Okay, maybe they didn’t. But still, what keeps you up at night?
BRUCE REED: The gravest dangers are real ones — the prospect of AI bioweapons that could wipe out any ethnic group and then garden-variety harms like deep fakes and voice cloning…you can imagine a world where families will have to have a safe word to know who they’re talking to on the phone.
If there’s anyone out there who went to grad school and got a masters in English [I can say] I feel like I already know what life after AI is like. When I was looking for work, everyone told me you’re not qualified for anything — which is how I ended up in politics.
ABBE LOWELL: We know the detriments because we’ve seen it in other technologies. and you’ve told us the biggest fear. What’s the most exciting benefit that you think comes from AI?
BRUCE REED: There are some awesome things that AI can do. The head of one AI company has suggested that we will get a century’s worth of cures and medical [advances] in the next decade. Cures for cancer, [and] maybe Alzheimer’s. AI has shown great promise as a personal tutor so the day may come when AI not only does your child’s homework for them but trains them how to do it themselves!
This was certainly encouraging. And, of course, as we all know, AI has been created initially by human beings. What could possibly go wrong?
There was a divided verdict on both counts. For the question of whether the lower court erred in finding that Victor Frankenstein was not negligent — the answer is yes, the lower court erred. Four justices found that to be the case, and one did not.
For the question of whether the lower court erred in finding that Elizabeth had no cause of action under the statute — the answer is no. We believe that Elizabeth had no cause of action under the statute. The two dissents raised some controversial issues.
JUSTICE BREYER: I dissented on the first point because I think Victor did his wife a favor. I mean, how many of us will be the subject of a meeting like this 208 years after we wrote — whatever we wrote. And moreover, the monster is not a monster. He’s terribly nice. He’s not the best-looking man in the world, but that’s okay. And he’s kind, and he’s lonely, and he sometimes has a bad temper, but who doesn’t? And her poetry is still alive. My great-grandmother from Transylvania [read] me one of [Elizabeth’s] poems!
Judge Nicole Berner, in asserting that Elizabeth did have a cause of action, defended women’s bodily autonomy.
JUDGE BERNER: I vote to reverse across the board. We cannot affirm a ruling that would further erode the rights of women to control their thoughts and emotions. or allow their most intimate and private decisions to be taken from them…. I will also say that in light of this evening’s ruling, I will be contacting my fine colleagues at the esteemed law firm of [redacted] for representation at my upcoming impeachment hearing.
Lowell returned to the stage to announce that Dr. Frankenstein was held liable by those in the theater and online.
Who can know what happens inside a marriage? It’s safe to say Victor and Elizabeth’s was a stormy one. We can, though, wish the best for these troubled souls. As to “Who was the real monster?” it’s up to you to decide.
The Shakespeare Theater Company’s 36th Mock Trial presented by the Shakespeare Theatre Company Bard Association was convened on March 17, 2025, in STC’s Sidney Harman Hall, 610 F St NW, Washington, DC, and live-streamed.
The program, including the Mock Trial Scenario, is online here.
