The Trial of Dr. Frankenstein – Michael Foster

Michael Foster, The Trial of Dr. Frankenstein, Pencil, ink, crayon, and watercolor on paper, 2014

Foster, p. 2

Foster, p. 3

Foster, p. 4

Foster, p. 5

WORLD COURT
Germany and Scotland
v.
DR. VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN
2119 Wd. 7239 Wd. 1: 647 SE2d 357097 S.E.2d 515; 1737 Wd. LEXIS 101737 Wd. LEXIS 10;
1737 Ingolstadt D Rep 5571737 Ingolstadt D. Rep. 557
S05Y0283
February 14, 1744, Decided.

Editorial Information: Subsequent History
Reconsideration denied March 11, 1744. As Corrected March 21, 1744.

Editorial Information: Prior History
Habeas corpus. Before Judge Athena

Disposition:
          Judgment affirmed

Counsel Mena Tartarus, for plaintiffs.
Deucalion Demeter, for the defendant.

Judges: Fate, Justice. All the Justices concur.

Opinion

Opinion by: FATE
{2119 Wd. 7239 Wd. 1: 647 SE2d 357097} Dr. Victor Frankenstein, plaintiffs in the court below
and plaintiffs in error in this court, brought habeas corpus proceedings against Ingolstadt and Skara
Brae in the World Court, seeking vacation of sentence on a constitutional level.

CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant challenged the decision of the World
Court for the denying appellant’s application for seeking vacation of sentence on a constitutional
level and an application for a certificate of probable cause. Appellant’s claim that he was not
competent to stand trial was rejected because a hard look at the record showed that even if
appellant had a mental disorder, it did not affect his competence to stand trial.

OVERVIEW: The World Court denied appellant’s application for vacation of sentence and an
application for a certificate of probable cause. The court reversed and remanded. On remand, the
district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and concluded that appellant was competent to stand
trial. The court ordered supplemental briefing on the competence to stand trial issue and heard oral
argument. The court found that the evidence did not demonstrate that appellant’s alleged mental
disorder was manifesting itself so as to affect his competence to stand trial. Further, the court held
that appellant’s failure to raise his Constitutional Amendment VI “Choice of counsel claim on direct
appeal constituted procedural default.” The court also rejected appellant’s argument that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The court found that a prosecution’s witness’s hypnotically
enhanced testimony did not violate appellant’s due process right to a fair trial. The court also held

PAGE 1

that he was not denied his right to apply for executive clemency. The court also rejected appellant’s
assertions that his jury was prejudiced on account of adverse pretrial publicity concerning his
conviction.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the decision of the district court denying appellant’s application
for vacation of sentence and an application for a certificate of probable cause. The court found
appellant’s several contentions to be without merit. Lexis Nexis Headnotes
Criminal Law & Procedure > Habeas Corpus > Successive Petitions > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Juries & Jurors > Challenges to Jury Venire > Bias & Prejudice >
General Overview: Although publicity concerning a defendant’s involvement in other crimes is
relevant in presuming jury prejudice, especially if the defendant’s involvement in that crime is
inadmissible in the guilt/innocence phase, prejudice is not presumed simply because the defendant’s
criminal record is well publicized.
Criminal Law & Procedure > Juries & Jurors > Challenges to Jury Venire > Bias & Prejudice >
General Overview
Civil Procedure > Trials > Jury Trials > Jurors > General Overview
Civil Procedure > Trials > Jury Trials > Jurors > Selection > General Overview: The question of
the partiality of an individual juror is one of historical fact to which the presumption of correctness
of a state court’s factual findings under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254(d) applies. Thus, the question is whether
there is fair support in the record for the state courts’ conclusion that the juror here would be
impartial. Opinion

Opinion by: FATE

PAGE 2

WORLD COURT

Ingolstadt, Bavaria, Germany

The grand jurors, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Ingolstadt, charge and accuse Dr. Victor
Frankenstein, of the county and state aforesaid with the offence of Wanton or malicious removal of
dead body from grave or disturbance of contents of grave; receipt, retention, disposal, or possession
of unlawfully removed dead body or bodily part; for that in the month of October 1737 in Bavaria,
Ingolstadt, contrary to the laws of said state, the good order, peace, and dignity thereof.

And the jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Ingolstadt, Bavaria further charge
and accuse Dr. Victor Frankenstein with having committed the offence of Removal of dead body
from grave for purposes of sale or dissection; for that the said, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, did in the
month of October 1737 in Bavaria, Ingolstadt did remove the body parts from the churchyards,
vaults and charnel houses of Ingolstad, contrary to the laws of said state, the good order, peace, and
dignity thereof.

And the jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Ingolstadt, Bavaria further charge
and accuse Dr. Victor Frankenstein with having committed the offence of Reckless abandonment;
for that the said, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, did willfully and voluntarily physically abandon his
creation with the intention of severing all parental or custodial duties and responsibilities to his
creation and leaving such creation in a condition which results in the death of said child, on
November 9, 1737 at 1a.m. in Ingolstadt, contrary to the laws of said state, the good order, peace,
and dignity thereof.

And the jurors, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Skara Brae, Scotland, further charge and
accuse Dr. Victor Frankenstein with having committed the offence of Aggravated Battery; for that
the said Dr. Victor Frankenstein did on January 3, 1742 at 7:25p.m. on the Orkneys Islands of
Skara Brae, maliciously cause bodily harm to another by depriving a being of a member of its
body, by rendering a member of its body useless, or by seriously disfiguring its body or a member
thereof; contrary to the laws of said state, the good order, peace, and dignity thereof.

And the jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Skara Brae, Scotland, further
charge and accuse Dr. Victor Frankenstein with having committed the offence of Wanton or
malicious removal of dead body from grave or disturbance of contents of grave; receipt, retention,
disposal, or possession of unlawfully removed dead body or bodily part; for that on or around
December 1741 on the Orkneys Islands of Skara Brae, the said Dr. Victor Frankenstein did
maliciously causes bodily harm to another by depriving a being of a member of its body, by
rendering a member useless, or by seriously disfiguring its body or a member thereof;
contrary to the laws of said state, the good order, peace, and dignity thereof.

PAGE 3